On 7/27/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I say energy is indeed consumed for its own sake. More precisely for the sake of that false deity called GDP growth and its microeconomic offspring, consumerism.
Yes indeed. I've just been re-reading Ben Hunnicutt's Work Without End, which deals with the debate that climaxed during the depression between proponents of work-time reduction and champions of job creation. Since the triumph of the "gospel of consumption" in the 1930s, the primary economic objective of government has been to ensure the continuous expansion of consumption and the creation of new needs that can be met by industry. To overturn that triumph of the "market" (not) it's going to take more than an understanding of energy alternatives. I have absolutely no doubt that all of our energy NEEDS could be met affordably and without technological breakthroughs. But the obstacle doesn't come from an allegedly "small but influential primitivist movement", whoever that may be. The obstacle comes from a deeply entrenched way of life that accepts the imperative of growth -- or as General Jaruzelski fondly called it, "the Theology of Work" -- as a given and assigns it the highest priority. And don't misunderstand that last statement as "anti-growth". It is only anti-meaningless, purposeless growth-for-it's-own-sake artificially-induced growth. No, we don't all have to ride bicycles to work. But those of us who do will get the benefits of exercise and closer contact with our environment and fellow bike riders. And if we plan our cities so that we are able to live and work so that we can bicycle to work, we might actually find it a benefit that we don't have to drive electric cars or take electric trains. -- Sandwichman
