>>1484300Infinite growth isn't possible, but planning the post growth economy isn't either. Capitalism demands constant growth and changing this requires what will essentially be a recession or even depression. Many big heads have thought about the de-growth economy but literally no one has been able to put forward a real economic plan that doesn't result in a conditions akin to a recession or depression on the road to get there. The closest to it is the circular economy which is a low waste, more sustainable model of development. It still relies on growth though. Understand that neither the powers that b nor the populace will tolerate an economic slowdown like this, and especially not in the name of environmentalism. Also consider that many of these models obviously require a departure from capitalism and a drastic change in living conditions, mostly to a locally sourced and more agrarian society. Historically speaking, thanks to dem agrarian bois like Pol Pot and Mao plans like this have a pretty bad reputation, despite being significantly different from those.
Realistically, the changes that need to occur is decarbonization of energy generation, limits on sprawl, subsidization of small farmers instead of industrial monoculture, real sustainability initiatives (with compliance), better planning to make cities more habitable (and equitable) and an overall change in consumer culture. That last bit is the hardest part of course. I'm not saying these are the right answers, but they're the most realistic ones in the current structure. Perhaps things will change before we get there, but hoping for a pandemic isn't going to help anyone take you seriously.
Also, stop saying "nature" and "natural beauty," from your previous post. There's so much more to the discussion than blanket terms like nature, ecosystems and our relation to them should be something that's evident from the diction you use. Nature doesn't "collapse" in the black and white terms you're suggesting.
