Instead, Gore found the materials taught children “how to be a good friend, a good human.”
Honestly, I can respect this. It’d be much easier to pull a Trump and claim that you fixed something that was never an issue by doing absolutely nothing, but she actually went through with it and admitted that she couldn’t find the issues she was looking for.
It kinda goes to show that there are actually sincere people (albeit ones that still tend to have disagreeable stances) on the right that just keep getting tricked by the grifters and conmen that won’t just bury their heads in the sand when something doesn’t fit their narrative.
The optimist wants to believe that makes up a lot of them, but the realist in me isn’t so sure.
I’ve always wondered why the consensus seems to be that it’s 100% necessary for an economy to continue growing for society to function, but maybe somebody smarter than me can explain it in terms I understand.
Because for real, if (IF) we could set things up so that everybody has access to food, pottable water, and shelter, then does it really matter if google took losses this quarter? Back when automation was still in its infancy, there was a hope that the human labor requirements would decrease without affecting survivability, so it’s not like what I’m saying is anything new. IF we were able to sustainably grow enough food, sanitize enough water, and build enough houses for everybody, make enough (NON-MONOPOLIZED) medicine for everybody, and just made it available for cheaply or for free, then you’ve successfully decoupled the economy from human survival.
Of course, the question becomes who would do all this with no profit to be had, which I know is the real crux of the issue, and is realistically not going to happen easily. But, as an idealist view, imagine this: A number of physically strong men and women and a number of scientists, who already have their own needs guaranteed, volunteer their time and expertise to spread the access to food, water, shelter, and healthcare to people in need because they actually just enjoy doing physical labor/ innovating technologies that will help humanity and aren’t just doing what a few suits who’ve never worked in that manner a day in their lives think is necessary to squeeze more money out of investors and poor people in exchange for a paycheck. After those needs are guaranteed, it should be possible to implement a form of capitalism for unnecessary expenditures without getting to the awful state we’re currently in (optional).
So to answer your question, no, I personally don’t think infinite growth is necessary perse, but our current setup does assume that it will somehow continue growing. As for the societal collapse issue, while our society is FAR larger and more interconnected than anything so far in history, it collapsing wouldn’t be the end of humanity (though on that note I would 100% rather society collapse from lack of labor FAR before I’d want it to collapse because Earth has completely run out of resources, so I guess I’m against your friend in that regard). Sure, there would be massive chaos (especially in population centers), and a lot of people will absolutely suffer and die (seriously, want to make clear I’m not making light of a collapse) but ultimately it still holds that anyone who can maintain access to food, shelter, and potable water (barring any health issues) will survive and eventually create a new society. Hopefully one that isn’t setup stupidly.