While conceptually I understand the noble idea that we should be building "to avoid the demand for energy and materials over the life-cycle of buildings and goods" I'm not sure how in practice that's supposed to work.
Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?
>>"To resolve the ecological overshoot and enable underprivileged societies to get access to sufficient infrastructure and shelters, we must shift priorities."
How is this concept to be implemented when it comes to businesses? Are Western nations to be limited in their pursuit of growth, opportunity, and employment so that "underprivileged societies" can pursue theirs? Is that ultimately what 'sufficiency' means? Businesses already pursue the markets of "underprivileged societies" by investing in infrastructure and development through offshoring jobs from Western nations to those of the developing world (think Vietnam as an example, which has seen phenomenal growth and industrialization over the past 20 years, especially the last 10.) Tapping those markets to be more local to the SE Asian consumer is just good business practice, but as there's only so much consumption that can be done by the Western consumer, it means some domestic companies will go out of business as the cost of production is too high to compete (see China and its unfair state-supported solar panel industry, along with its currency manipulation.)
Does the "shift in priorities" mean the Western consumer should continue to pay more through NGO, nation-state, and corporate investment in developing markets in those underprivileged economies, or merely to reduce their spending on 'stuff' they may not need? And if it's the latter, since 70% of the U.S. GDP is dependent on consumer spending, what would a 10% reduction in us quitting 'stuff' look like to the federal budget, entitlements, and inflation?
I genuinely believe there aren't real, boots-on-the-ground answers to these kinds of complex questions for the average person to fully understand sufficiency as an implementation concept, or what it would look like—to them—in the real world. Would they be more or less averse to change if they knew those details?
We get it. You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do. But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible. And I'd hazard a guess that there are also a lot of us who don't believe it's possible to leave that planet for others if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth. And I doubt if we are suddenly going to change our mind about that. I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING. If you are not a troll then prove it.
Once in a while, I review "stuff" and this was a post included in my "stuff". I noticed that VB actually asked a very important business question with a future-forward point-of-view:
"Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?"
This is standard fare for probing for solutions when doing the analysis for future needs. VB asked some rather decent (if simplified) questions of you, Geoffrey.
Instead of answering the BUSINESS questions, you went after his political outlook - and failed to address even a single question or issue in any kind of meaningful manner. The closest to an answer that I can figure out is "if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth".
Which is to say:
1) no, "we" will not allow you to expand to meet the consumers' demands for your product.
2) You shouldn't have been allowed to start a new company (which is an expansion from nothing so it IS growth all on its own) in the first place.
So other than a quick rant, and since some time has passed, what WOULD your rational answer be to VB's scenario?
And no, it has NOTHING to do with "you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do".
>>"You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do."
Actually no, what you meant to write is "I don't think anybody should be able to FORCE anyone else what to do." It's the coercion thing I have a problem with, especially when I'm being told *I* need to do something that India, China, and the rest of the developing world isn't doing which gives them a competitive edge over me as an American, since we had our manufacturing outsourced by our asshole investor class.
>>"But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible."
The planet will be fine. It doesn't give a shit if we humans are here or not, and we aren't destroying it irreparably, because nature is ALWAYS stronger and greater than we as the human species.
>>"I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING."
The only brainstorming I ever see is "let's ban XYZ!" in a knee-jerk reaction and believing that the Western world will willingly give up its standard of living to be more like that in the developing world when *even the developing world* doesn't want to live like that—so hubris, meet arrogance. The only people who do that are those who believe voluntarily doing so will have a meaningful impact on global emissions (hint: it won't.) So outside of asking "How do I—AND ONLY I—lead a less carbon intensive life?" you're not going to find a sound, rational, politically supportive message with which to connect to the non-echo chamber audience.
I like meat. Almost the entire world over likes eating meat. Taxing beef isn't going to do anything because I'll just raise my own—same as growing my own veg. Do you think that the government has the right to make raising your own food illegal? No, of course not. Hell, we're legalizing marijuana all over the place and there's no redeeming qualities to toking, especially when it's not the shit from the 1960's and 70's your grandparents smoked—but beef? Soundly nutritional, and can be raised on land that doesn't support other crops. How is that a bad thing? India has over 307 million for fuck's sake and THOSE cows can't be mistreated, harassed, or killed for food. They just ... exist ... and cause headaches for water quality, traffic control, and more. Wouldn't it make sense to get rid of most of them since they do nothing but belch methane and cause many other sanitary problems?
There you go, that's a good first plan to "fix things" to prove I'm not a troll—but good luck convincing Indians, their government, and Hindus they need to rid their lands of pesky, useless, methane belching, water polluting, starving cows. Good enough for your approval?
Without sufficiency, everything else is window dressing.
"Sufficiency" is a new term for me. But it's importance is inherently obvious. Thanks for introducing me to this new way of thinking.
While conceptually I understand the noble idea that we should be building "to avoid the demand for energy and materials over the life-cycle of buildings and goods" I'm not sure how in practice that's supposed to work.
Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?
>>"To resolve the ecological overshoot and enable underprivileged societies to get access to sufficient infrastructure and shelters, we must shift priorities."
How is this concept to be implemented when it comes to businesses? Are Western nations to be limited in their pursuit of growth, opportunity, and employment so that "underprivileged societies" can pursue theirs? Is that ultimately what 'sufficiency' means? Businesses already pursue the markets of "underprivileged societies" by investing in infrastructure and development through offshoring jobs from Western nations to those of the developing world (think Vietnam as an example, which has seen phenomenal growth and industrialization over the past 20 years, especially the last 10.) Tapping those markets to be more local to the SE Asian consumer is just good business practice, but as there's only so much consumption that can be done by the Western consumer, it means some domestic companies will go out of business as the cost of production is too high to compete (see China and its unfair state-supported solar panel industry, along with its currency manipulation.)
Does the "shift in priorities" mean the Western consumer should continue to pay more through NGO, nation-state, and corporate investment in developing markets in those underprivileged economies, or merely to reduce their spending on 'stuff' they may not need? And if it's the latter, since 70% of the U.S. GDP is dependent on consumer spending, what would a 10% reduction in us quitting 'stuff' look like to the federal budget, entitlements, and inflation?
I genuinely believe there aren't real, boots-on-the-ground answers to these kinds of complex questions for the average person to fully understand sufficiency as an implementation concept, or what it would look like—to them—in the real world. Would they be more or less averse to change if they knew those details?
We get it. You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do. But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible. And I'd hazard a guess that there are also a lot of us who don't believe it's possible to leave that planet for others if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth. And I doubt if we are suddenly going to change our mind about that. I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING. If you are not a troll then prove it.
If you can't answer the question, just say so.
Once in a while, I review "stuff" and this was a post included in my "stuff". I noticed that VB actually asked a very important business question with a future-forward point-of-view:
"Assume Acme Corp has 50 employees and requires 2000 sq meters of floor space to build their widgets. They construct a building to house the equipment, office space, and infrastructure to produce a million widgets per annum. Growth of the company (because Wile E. Coyote is a good repeat customer) amounts to 3% annually, which means in ten years they've now grown to 67 employees producing 35% more widgets. The space is no longer adequate to house operations. Do they (a) remodel or (b) relocate? Either way, the company has grown outside of its ability to be sufficient for employee comfort and productivity. So naturally, when and if they decide to relocate, do they look to find an existing structure or build to suit with an expected growth rate for the next 20 or 25 years? What does that then look like? I genuinely ask because I don't understand the concept of growing productivity/output without SOME kind of commensurate growth in building and infrastructure requirements to make that happen. Or are businesses not supposed to grow at all? Am I missing something?"
This is standard fare for probing for solutions when doing the analysis for future needs. VB asked some rather decent (if simplified) questions of you, Geoffrey.
Instead of answering the BUSINESS questions, you went after his political outlook - and failed to address even a single question or issue in any kind of meaningful manner. The closest to an answer that I can figure out is "if we don't get off this treadmill of eternal growth".
Which is to say:
1) no, "we" will not allow you to expand to meet the consumers' demands for your product.
2) You shouldn't have been allowed to start a new company (which is an expansion from nothing so it IS growth all on its own) in the first place.
So other than a quick rant, and since some time has passed, what WOULD your rational answer be to VB's scenario?
And no, it has NOTHING to do with "you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do".
>>"You're a Libertarian and you don't think anybody should be able to tell anyone else what to do."
Actually no, what you meant to write is "I don't think anybody should be able to FORCE anyone else what to do." It's the coercion thing I have a problem with, especially when I'm being told *I* need to do something that India, China, and the rest of the developing world isn't doing which gives them a competitive edge over me as an American, since we had our manufacturing outsourced by our asshole investor class.
>>"But there are a lot of us here who want to leave behind a healthy, living planet for humans (and all living things) to thrive on for as long as possible."
The planet will be fine. It doesn't give a shit if we humans are here or not, and we aren't destroying it irreparably, because nature is ALWAYS stronger and greater than we as the human species.
>>"I'm also guessing that most people are here (reading this sub stack and others) to brainstorm about ways to fix things but you always seem to come here just to disagree with EVERYTHING."
The only brainstorming I ever see is "let's ban XYZ!" in a knee-jerk reaction and believing that the Western world will willingly give up its standard of living to be more like that in the developing world when *even the developing world* doesn't want to live like that—so hubris, meet arrogance. The only people who do that are those who believe voluntarily doing so will have a meaningful impact on global emissions (hint: it won't.) So outside of asking "How do I—AND ONLY I—lead a less carbon intensive life?" you're not going to find a sound, rational, politically supportive message with which to connect to the non-echo chamber audience.
I like meat. Almost the entire world over likes eating meat. Taxing beef isn't going to do anything because I'll just raise my own—same as growing my own veg. Do you think that the government has the right to make raising your own food illegal? No, of course not. Hell, we're legalizing marijuana all over the place and there's no redeeming qualities to toking, especially when it's not the shit from the 1960's and 70's your grandparents smoked—but beef? Soundly nutritional, and can be raised on land that doesn't support other crops. How is that a bad thing? India has over 307 million for fuck's sake and THOSE cows can't be mistreated, harassed, or killed for food. They just ... exist ... and cause headaches for water quality, traffic control, and more. Wouldn't it make sense to get rid of most of them since they do nothing but belch methane and cause many other sanitary problems?
There you go, that's a good first plan to "fix things" to prove I'm not a troll—but good luck convincing Indians, their government, and Hindus they need to rid their lands of pesky, useless, methane belching, water polluting, starving cows. Good enough for your approval?
What I've been preaching for decades.
Glad to know that the building world is catching up with me.