Abstract
There are two interacting types of argument for a steady-state economy: its biopyhsical necessity, and its ethical desirability. The first argument is made in terms of the finitude, entropy, and physical maintenance requirements of “dissipative structures” (populations of human bodies and their exosomatic extensions). The second argument considers that the evolution of the human species is now purpose-driven, no longer random, if indeed it ever was. Purpose introduces value judgments of right and wrong regarding how our economy should relate to the rest of creation – judgments ignored by both neoclassical economics and neo-Darwinist naturalism.
Highlights
There are two interacting types of argument for a steady-state economy: its biopyhsical necessity, and its ethical desirability
The first argument is made in terms of the finitude, entropy, and physical maintenance requirements of “dissipative structures”
The second argument considers that the evolution of the human species is purpose-driven, no longer random, if it ever was
Summary
There are two interacting types of argument for a steady-state economy: its biopyhsical necessity, and its ethical desirability. The way to do that is to leave a large part of the ecosphere alone, to limit our absorption of it into the economic subsystem – to keep a large part of the earth ecosystem in natura – as a source for low-entropy matter/energy inputs and as a sink for highentropy waste, and as a provider of life-support services, including services to non human species.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
