I wish governments would set quality of life targets instead of gdp targets. If you need to grow gdp to get to a better quality of life, fine, but please, let’s all stop spreading the lie that gdp growth inevitably leads to increased quality of life, because often it causes the reverse.
The reason I phrased it as a search term, rather than via reference, is to encourage people just to search for it.
I'm sufficiently confident in the empirical evidence that any reputable-looking resource measuring these things over the last 40year will report what I describe.
For how long? Until when?
What is the endgame?
And then what? How will you maintain that?
And how much of other species' habitats would we ruin to achieve that in the first place?
People may never be satisfied with their lives as long as they perceive inequality (real or imagined).
I care about diseases being allowed to spread more than they should in the name of growth. This pandemic happened precisely because of greed and the “growth” fetish.
Poverty is skyrocketing now precisely because we didn't bother to stop to set up safeguards in our neverending lust for growth.
I care about our privacy being forcibly penetrated to sell data on our every eye saccade in the name of growth.
I care about every physical and virtual space being bombarded with advertisements during every waking moment in the name of growth.
I care about having every single aspect of human existence from water to companionship, being monetized and curated in the name of growth.
I care about IP franchises being milked to death and their corpses defiled and then their graves exhumed in the name of growth.
I care about the vast biomes being burned down and entire species going extinct in the name of growth.
I care about ethics and morals getting thrown under a steamroller in the name of growth.
In two years time when the death rate on C19 is reported at as-flu levels and the world is in a global depression with massive excess poverty, death, and abuse you'll be ranting then too -- just connecting these to "neoliberal conspiracies" as now.
Rather, this will be caused by precise the lack of concern for the economy.
The same could be easily said about your comments here, comparing "redistribution of wealth" to genocide.
The same holds today. The GDP of the planet, distributed to all its population is a one-off 20k USD. Not enough wealth for almost anything.
Wealth is about producing over time, and increasing global wealth, ie. decreasing global poverty, is about producing more.
I think the failure to associate such policies with the genocides which underpin them is one of the great educational and moral failures of the 20th C. It hasn't been explained to people that our society is the most moral (by being the richest) in history because people engage in productive activities which provide for their own wealth.
That is absolute bullshit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993157
"2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees."
The net GDP of the world, divided by the number of people in it is a one-off 20k -- that amount solves almost no global problems.
As for 2m chickens dying, that's a one-off meal for c. 5 million people.
So one day of hunger for only 5m people was lost. Again: almost nothing.
World problems are solved through growth, not by saving a few lost dinners.
If you care about global poverty, disease, famine etc. then you care about growth.
Since we do not have levels of abundance which reach everyone even in rich societies, growth is everywhere a concern.
To "question its value" is to say: since I have sufficient wealth, that'll do for the planet.