[piva00]

> Least expensive literally translate to more efficeny. To build cheaper things you need to spend less on electricity for manufacturing, less on transport (fuel), less on labor etc. Which means more efficeny.

You are just considering the production aspect of efficiency. Cheaper is not higher quality, cheaper goods have a higher rate of failure, higher rate of failure means increased consumption which pushes production up. More efficient and cheaper production with better quality definitely falls into your argument, anything else becomes highly variable if it will translate, ultimately, to better efficiency of resource usage overall.

> Sure. But this also assumes we are on the verge of collapsing because of sustainability issues. We don't know that. This also assumes somehow if we start pushing on sustainability now we are going to overcome that. We don't know that.

Why on the verge? I'm using the same time-scale as you did: eventually, which in mathematical terms would mean a function with its time component using a limit approaching infinity. Eventually automatically solving sustainability because "market forces" push towards efficiency doesn't mean that we should just accept that as a rule and that it's the best course of action given that we can actively model and predict if we should and could be more efficient and sustainable.

What's the argument against focusing on sustainability first? Hampering innovation and some warped sense of progress?

[blocked_again]

Because sustainability is an unquantifiable word that doesn't mean anything. Please explain sustainability

Also cheaper doesn't mean it have to be low quality.

Computers used to be unaffordable to vast majority of people and companies 50 years back. Now everyone has one in their pocket.