Earlier this week there was a livestream debate highlighting the key points of the Green Growth and DeGrowth perspectives. This week's Frankly adds a third perspective to the ‘growth critical’ conversation - that modern society has a metabolism and momentum and will grow - in non-green ways - until we can't. IMO this is a critical third category that should be included in these discussions, despite its 'tougher sell'.
Sep 9, 2022·edited Sep 9, 2022Liked by Nate Hagens
Outstanding commentary on the Oxford debate thanks, Nate . I too watched (in the small hours in NZ!), and share most of your views.
I also felt Fankhauser rested too much on political obstruction as being insoluble, and that Hickel rather diminished his argument by blending it too strongly with social agendas (not that they are unimportant, but he in part predicated his case on value outcomes that may be more divisive than is helpful).
I was also concerned that, in spite of Kate Raworth's valiant attempts, there was no sense of identifying middle ground between the two protagonists - and I would love to know their various views on your "grow until we stop" hypothesis (which may be that "middle ground" a;though I don't see it that way. Thanks again, Lindsay.
Outstanding commentary on the Oxford debate thanks, Nate . I too watched (in the small hours in NZ!), and share most of your views.
I also felt Fankhauser rested too much on political obstruction as being insoluble, and that Hickel rather diminished his argument by blending it too strongly with social agendas (not that they are unimportant, but he in part predicated his case on value outcomes that may be more divisive than is helpful).
I was also concerned that, in spite of Kate Raworth's valiant attempts, there was no sense of identifying middle ground between the two protagonists - and I would love to know their various views on your "grow until we stop" hypothesis (which may be that "middle ground" a;though I don't see it that way. Thanks again, Lindsay.