The old ciscussion of "The Limits of Growth" is now ongoing for more than 40 years - and rising recently.

I have one small and simple question: Why is there no exact "value" in any metric system used by economists for the limit?

Constructing a bridge gives such a value - 100 tons is ok, 200 is too much, and the bridge will collapse at about 155 tons around.

My point is:

If someone is talking about growth as the only way out of "the financial mess up" ... and someone other is talking about "the limits of growth" ... in what kind o metric language are they talking with each other?

I see a gigantic loophole in the economic theory not having an answer about this - and as far as I see - not even having an discussion about it.

That is why i worked on my theory of using the productively used energy as an expression of the number of working guy (giving at least physical labor to something in an economy to build it up).

Enclosed you find my published paper as a link and an attached slightly updated pdf of the same paper.

Similar questions and discussions