Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
I used "ethical grounds" because most of the counter-arguments against using consumption seem to be grounded in ethics.
And I was talking about a medium-run average of consumption, not instantaneous one. It's possible to maintain high consumption standards for some time by recklessly letting your capital stock (wealth) depreciate, or by exploiting natural resources. That's why a longer view is needed.
b) as ultimately material well-being is related to consumption, this is the measure that should be used - the integral of it over time, anyway.
c) it's very easy to damn GDP but hard to come up with viable alternatives that could be used in all countries, that's why it's used despite the shortcomings. Just like the democracy, you see.
b. I could go for the integral of GNI as telling us something more useful.
c. I'm not convinced that hiding the subtleties of reality behind a single index is going to tell us a damn thing. To that extent, HDI is just as intrinsically flawed as GDP - neither mean anything much out of context.
