[prichino]

The problem is when a civilization stops providing ways for its inhabitants to keep winning inside of it, the civilization collapses. In Western civilization, if there is no growth, how will you motivate people to keep working? The only thing left is to steal from the people who already have things.

[turns0ut]

We have two options; intentionally iterate away from this society or it will collapse for SOME reason; bigotry, environment catastrophe…

Physical laws do not give a fuck about our philosophy. Accept figurative death, cowards.

Steal from people who intentionally changed the rules to deflate our wealth. The laws and their interpretation are no accident.

What this debate is is deference to the elderly or the youth.

Tacit ageism against the future or well reasoned action against the past.

Gramps; you had a good run. Bye.

Edit: I have an MSc in elastic structures, used to work in high powered switching equipment. I understand rates of change in high energy systems like a planets climate. This is not an emotional argument from a place of ignorance.

[BlargMcLarg]

You don't need growth in zero-sum areas or areas that would make us face environmental collapse for people to want to survive and see their needs met.

Perishable goods still exist. People will still work to create perishable goods to consume. They will still change cultures and create solutions in areas where the game is not (pseudo-)zero-sum.

You also can't grow everything forever, as real estate is showing. If your concern is people stealing, that's an obvious target.

[caust1c]

Many if not most philosophies and religions arise precisely to answer this very question. It's possible to live happily and healthily without growth.

People will always work because work needs to be done. Food, shelter, power, all of it requires active work by people. No stealing necessary. The laissez-faire rhetoric of "no growth, nobody to work" is exactly the problem mindset this economist is trying to address.