Sometimes I see these conclusions and I wonder what we’re doing at these research centers because this seemed obvious to be when I was still a teenager.

We are not more wealthy, because the earth has the same resources it had before. We didn’t move to a bigger planet that can now easily feed everyone. If you can extract resources cheaper and faster, it doesn’t mean you have more resources it just means you will hit the limits faster.

What we have done is map those resources to some global ledger and then applied a multiplier to it and moved around who owns most of it. So now you have a class of humans that are fewer and own more of the same amount of resources and use the multiplier to claim we now have more so don’t complain because look at this awesome hockey stick line.

What are these people doing at these labs?

In related old and new readings, see also:

Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered

  is a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher. The title "Small Is Beautiful" came from a principle espoused by Schumacher's teacher Leopold Kohr[1] (1909–1994) advancing small, appropriate technologies, policies, and polities as a superior alternative to the mainstream ethos of "bigger is better". 

‘An equal and habitable world is possible’: academics set out sweeping vision for planetary survival

  Global report provides an alternative to climate breakdown, political extremism and economic tensions

~ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/04/world-in...

"Growth" has always been a euphemism for reallocation.

[dead]