<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debunking the Objections to a Steady State Economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.steadystateblog.org/debunking-the-objections-to-a-steady-state-economy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.steadystateblog.org/debunking-the-objections-to-a-steady-state-economy/#utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=debunking-the-objections-to-a-steady-state-economy</link>
	<description>Commentary on Ecological Economics and The Steady State Economy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:15:20 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: entropybuster</title>
		<link>http://www.steadystateblog.org/debunking-the-objections-to-a-steady-state-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-2733</link>
		<dc:creator>entropybuster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steadystateblog.org/?p=17#comment-2733</guid>
		<description>For a new slant on the economic process try two papers:
&quot;A Thermodynamic Theory of Economics&quot;, 
&quot;Thermodynamics and the Economic Process, an application to World Energy Resources and Climate Change&quot;
 by John Bryant, VOCAT International. www.vocat.co.uk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a new slant on the economic process try two papers:<br />
&#8220;A Thermodynamic Theory of Economics&#8221;,<br />
&#8220;Thermodynamics and the Economic Process, an application to World Energy Resources and Climate Change&#8221;<br />
 by John Bryant, VOCAT International. <a href="http://www.vocat.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.vocat.co.uk</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dinger</title>
		<link>http://www.steadystateblog.org/debunking-the-objections-to-a-steady-state-economy/comment-page-1/#comment-2725</link>
		<dc:creator>Dinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steadystateblog.org/?p=17#comment-2725</guid>
		<description>A good overview of an expansive subject, if not complex.  

If there were a &quot;Common Sense&quot; Faculty in Universities in which one could major - imagine that - we would have Common Sense Consultants and the world might have been a different place.

This poses the question, that if the cause is not so very complex to grasp, then why is it so difficult for those with the power to make decisions which matter to act?  Surely, one urgent question should be on their lips by now:  &lt;em&gt;If resources are finite, when they run out, what then?&lt;/em&gt;  The Achilles heel of the current model of capitalism is just that, the very reason it is unsustainable.

The first frontier could be to reverse the mindset in manufacturing - the culture of factoring into consumer goods a pre-determined &quot;use by date&quot; - consumer goods which are made to last just long enough to meet consumer expectations; built to fail, to wear out within a certain time frame, necessitating regular replacement.  Increased durability would relieve the strain on resources, e.g. reduce the demand on fossil fuels in the manufacture of synthetics/plastics/neoprenes, etc. likewise on timber and on resource mining in the manufacture of products which utilise coking coal/iron ore/steel, alloys, copper, zinc, metals, minerals, etc.  The technology is available to build goods with increased durability - the fiscal will alone is missing.

It goes without saying this approach would also automatically reduce landfill pollution and CO2 levels significantly, the global benefits from which need no documenting here.

Why can I find no mention of this well-known, well-accepted but no longer tolerable ploy engaged by industry, &lt;em&gt;(to simply increase its turnover and consumer demand)&lt;/em&gt;, at the expense of our ecology and environment?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A good overview of an expansive subject, if not complex.  </p>
<p>If there were a &#8220;Common Sense&#8221; Faculty in Universities in which one could major &#8211; imagine that &#8211; we would have Common Sense Consultants and the world might have been a different place.</p>
<p>This poses the question, that if the cause is not so very complex to grasp, then why is it so difficult for those with the power to make decisions which matter to act?  Surely, one urgent question should be on their lips by now:  <em>If resources are finite, when they run out, what then?</em>  The Achilles heel of the current model of capitalism is just that, the very reason it is unsustainable.</p>
<p>The first frontier could be to reverse the mindset in manufacturing &#8211; the culture of factoring into consumer goods a pre-determined &#8220;use by date&#8221; &#8211; consumer goods which are made to last just long enough to meet consumer expectations; built to fail, to wear out within a certain time frame, necessitating regular replacement.  Increased durability would relieve the strain on resources, e.g. reduce the demand on fossil fuels in the manufacture of synthetics/plastics/neoprenes, etc. likewise on timber and on resource mining in the manufacture of products which utilise coking coal/iron ore/steel, alloys, copper, zinc, metals, minerals, etc.  The technology is available to build goods with increased durability &#8211; the fiscal will alone is missing.</p>
<p>It goes without saying this approach would also automatically reduce landfill pollution and CO2 levels significantly, the global benefits from which need no documenting here.</p>
<p>Why can I find no mention of this well-known, well-accepted but no longer tolerable ploy engaged by industry, <em>(to simply increase its turnover and consumer demand)</em>, at the expense of our ecology and environment?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
