REGISTER FOR THIS WEBINAR

Did you know our relentless pursuit of robust economic growth is liquidating the planet of vital resources much faster than it can regenerate them? We are “burning down the house to keep warm.” There is another way.

If this idea intrigues you, please join us for an enlightening conversation February 15, 2017 with Brian Czech, author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train and Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads. Brian is president of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, and he’ll explain the need for, and benefits of, a steady state economy.

Brian is a conservation biologist who taught ecological economics for over a decade at Virginia Tech. He is frequently invited to speak to groups and writes for Huffington Post and the Daly News. I love his sense of humor and way with words. Registration for this webinar entitles you to participate both in the February 15 session and a more advanced followup webinar on February 22. Both webinars begin at 9 pm U.S. Eastern Time and last one hour and 15 minutes. Registrants will receive a link to view a replay of the webinar. . . .

Here’s the 7th and final installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we didn’t have time to address, and I’m including comments received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome below. I’ve jumped in and offered some of my own thoughts because of the importance and relevance of these. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

24. Libby Sharpe asked: “I hate to be the one to raise the immigration question, but any thoughts about that? I am compassionate toward immigrants, but it seems to me that unfettered immigration just disseminates populations without lowering birthrates, as much of the immigrations is from countries where there is high selective pressure for increased birth rates.” . . .

This is installment 6 of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing questions we didn’t have time to address and  including comments received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome below. If you don’t want to miss our next webinar, your best bet is to join GrowthBusters. At the very least, subscribe to our email updates. Once again, population dominates the discussion.

20. Bruce Phillips asked: “Are there any population narratives that would unite the political left and right?”

Paul Ehrlich: Don’t know of any except the bare facts, which seem to have no influence. . . .

Here’s the 5th installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we didn’t have time to address, and I’m including comments received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome below. I think today’s questions are particularly important, so I’ve jumped in and offered some of my own thoughts. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

16. Chris Bystroff asked: “Paul– Will accelerated growth lead to a cataclysm, like a nuclear war or something else, sooner? And if so would it be less damaging than waiting until the population doubles again?” . . .

Here’s the 4th installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we did not have time to address, and including any comments I received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome.

12. Brian Sanderson asked: “Which is easier to alter, per-capita consumption or overpopulation?
Ultimately, if nothing is done, nature will force a reduction in per-capita consumption.
On the other hand, if the question is which we as human agents will find most easy to alter, it’s population that is easier. The data are clear on this.”  But it would take something like a century to get significant shrinkage, and we likely don’t have a century. . . .