[Archelaos]

> there's no way of our GDP keeps growing indefinitely while reducing our ecological footprint.

Not necessarily. For exmaple, if I recite a poem to you for a dollar and you sing to me a song for a dollar, GDP increases without changing the ecological footprint.

And even if the ecological footprint per capita is growing, we might be able to reduce the overall ecological footprint in a few decades, when earth's population is declining. It depends on the ratio between the two tendencies.

I am not sure if that will really be the case, but it is a possibility.

[midoridensha]

>Not necessarily. For exmaple, if I recite a poem to you for a dollar and you sing to me a song for a dollar, GDP increases without changing the ecological footprint.

And what if we raise our prices, so I recite a bad poem for $1M and you sing a terrible, off-key song to me for the same price? Isn't that effectively massively raising the GDP without doing any useful work at all?

[Archelaos]

Yep. But usefulness is besides the point. The question was whether GDP can rise without changing the ecological footprint.