[m3nu]

Would be great, but human nature is to want more stuff, money and power.

On the upside, many "new" sectors don't use natural resources, except human time. E.g. writing blog posts, social media management, doing marketing campaigns for Gucci. Growth in those sectors should be (mostly) easy on the planet.

[dcolkitt]

> Would be great, but human nature is to want more stuff, money and power.

A lot of HN lives in an upper-middle class first world bubble. Median global income is $2900 per year. That's less than $10 a day.

For the vast majority of the world, economic growth isn't about "stuff, money and power". It's about escaping abject poverty. It's about reliable access to running water, electricity, shelter, and food.

[BlueTemplar]

Source? Last time I've checked global median income was closer to $365/year...

EDIT : Never mind, I must have confused it with the poverty line, and an old one to boot !

EDIT2 : Note though, that the costs of living, and especially of housing, are going to be wildly different depending on your location !

[hurrdurr2]

Except aren't a lot the jobs you described usually trying to sell products that aren't necessarily good for the planet?

[Mirioron]

Exactly this. Without stuff to sell, those "industries" wouldn't really exist. If your blog relies on ad revenue and you have nothing to advertise you're not making money. Gucci doesn't need to advertise if there's no competition to Gucci.

[tonyedgecombe]

On the other hand nobody is going to die because society decided it no longer needed Gucci. There is a strong argument we would be better off without them.

[Mirioron]

You remove enough luxury products and people won't have jobs though.

[claudiawerner]

>Would be great, but human nature is to want more stuff, money and power.

I wonder to what extent this is a feature of capitalism (or class society in general) rather than human nature.