[anovikov]

But well, the goal is about increasing consumption. No matter if we like it or not, it will increase massively - probably more than an order of magnitude overall - this century, simply because countries that are now poor, will no longer be so once massive amounts of renewable energy become the norm. We have to decrease pollution while also quickly increasing consumption - probably at same rate as in the "main" fossil fuel era - in 1870..1970, between oil becoming a thing, and Arab embargo.

[uxp8u61q]

If you take as an axiom that the core cause of the current destruction of our planet is inevitable, then there's isn't much we can discuss.

[Faaak]

I agree. Also, our planet is limited. Thinking that we can increase production infinitely ( good economist point of view), is just physically impossible

[iraqmtpizza]

0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +...

Seems physically possible to me.

[itishappy]

With 10^27 g of Earth (without utilizing extra-planetary resources) each of which can be broken down into around 10^23 mol/g of stuff (without significantly altering the material composition) your infinite string of numbers will only be about 50 digits long.

[badpun]

That's rather "infinitesimally", not "infinitely".

[iraqmtpizza]

We're talking about infinite time, not infinite space.

[anovikov]

But well this is the whole reason of existence of humankind and civilisation, the meaning of life: consumption. I struggle to understand how this can be doubted.

[itishappy]

I must say, that's quite a depressing outlook. Sure, we consume a lot, but "the meaning of life?" Damn! I sleep a lot too, arguably even more than I consume, but I wouldn't argue that's my whole reason for existing...

Maybe you mean "we need to consume to live," which I agree with a whole lot more. Even then, there's no reason we need to maximize consumption. Food is definitely critical to our existence, but pre-peeled oranges in individual plastic packaging are not.