#21,5

Today I have had an article writing day, with some 100 words written. I mainly did some editing and literature search for the second article I co-write with Joakim Jiri Haaland, whom I supervise for his ph.d. I also got some editorial information and feedback and made some plans with regard to my chapter "Ecological semiotics", which will be part of the 3rd edition of Encyclopedia of Ecology, and the article on Arne Næss´ views on economics which I co-write with Jan Karlstrøm and Thomas Hylland Eriksen, which we got back from Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift for revision. So far this Spring I have had 21,5 writing days.

#35

Today I have had a writing day, the 35th this Spring, with some 100 words added to our article on Arne Næss and his views on economics. I have also retrieved some information with regard to the revision of my article "Wasted GDP in the USA".

#21

Today, on this Spring´s writing day #21, I have added some 100 words altogether to our GDP review article and our article on Arne Næss´view on economics.

#11

Today I have had a writing day, the 11th this Spring, with some 100 words added to our GDP review article and our article on Arne Næss´ view on economics.

Party leader Ropstad cites my demography chapter in Bergens Tidende chronicle

CORRECTION: The newspaper says they added the link, not Ropstad.

***

Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, party leader for Kristelig folkeparti (the Norwegian Christian Democrats) has written a chronicle published in Bergens Tidende today entitled "Skaper vi menneskeverd, redder vi miljøet". In a paragraph about the environmental movement´s attitude to population growth, he cites a book chapter of mine (see link below):

Det kanskje mest bekymringsfulle, er når det tas til orde for drakoniske tiltak for å redusere verdens befolkning. Den norske økofilosofen Arne Næss mente at verden ikke tålte en befolkning på mer enn 100 millioner. På 1960-tallet førte alarmismen i boken The Population Bomb av den amerikanske befolkningseksperten Paul Erlich til at Vesten (herunder Norge) sponset «befolkningstiltak» i India og andre land som førte til grove brudd på menneskerettighetene.

Reference:

Tønnessen, Morten 2014. Statistikerens guide til utopia II: En demografisk analyse av øko-visjoner om befolkningsnedgang i det tredje årtusen [The statistician's guide to utopia II: A demographic analysis of eco-visions of population decline in the third milennium]. In the Festschrift Motmæle: En antologi til Kjersti Ericsson, Cecilie Høigård og Guri Larsen [Speaking out: An anthology for Kjersti Ericsson, Cecilie Høigård and Guri Larsen] (eds Heidi Mork Lomell and Liv Finstad), p. 435–453. Oslo: Novus forlag. Tilgjengelig via UiS Open Research Archive: http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2367876/T%25C3%25B8nnesen.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

His assertion that Arne Næss thought 100 million people was all the Earth could take is not entirely accurate. What he did say at one point is that he thought a world population of 50 to 100 million people would be sufficient to maintain cultural diversity (and that a lower world population would be acceptable for humans and beneficial for non-humans overall).

Ropstad´s reference to my chapter refers to my Academia.edu page, where the chapter is also available.

Arne Næss webpage to go offline in January

The webpage arnei100.no, which is the website for the 100 year-anniversary of the birth of Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss (1912-2009), will go offline on January 22nd 2014. I have served as webmaster and as a member of the Arne i 100 committee.

Link to 2005 demography chronicle on Arne Næss in conservative commentator's blogpost

In a recent blog post on Minerva Nett, a Norwegian conservative website, published May 20th, political commentator Jan Arild Snoen links to my 2005 chronicle, published in the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, "Europa i overgangsalderen" [literally: Europe in menopause; in Norwegian something akin to "Europe in transition age"] when he writes about Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss' view that a world population of 50-100 million people in the long run might be desirable. His post is entitled "Var nazistene grønne?" [Were the nazis green?].

Chronicle in Norwegian environmentalist magazine on Arne Næss

Today I received no. 1/2012 of the Norwegian environmentalist magazine "Natur & Miljø" (Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), which features a chronicle I have written on behalf of Arne i 100. The title of the chronicle is "Arne Næss i 100 - Fortsatt aktuell?", which translates approximately as "Arne Næss, 100 - still relevant/applicable?"

The full text, which addresses deep ecology and its relevance today, is available in its original Norwegian version in my Norwegian language blog, Utopisk Realisme.

Brief academic CV - updated

My brief academic CV, which is fixed to the sidebar to the right, now reads like this (also, see my full CV):

BRIEF ACADEMIC CV

• 1 Associate professor (25% > 100%) at University of Stavanger (Department of Health Studies) in 2012
• 2 Doctoral degree from University of Tartu (Department of Semiotics), Estonia
• 3 PhD supervisor: Kalevi Kull; supplementary supervisor: Winfried Nöth (Universität Kassel/Catholic University of São Paulo)
• 4 Title of PhD thesis (defended December 15th 2011): "Umwelt Transition and Uexküllian Phenomenology. An Ecosemiotic Analysis of Norwegian Wolf Management"
• 5 A main researcher in Timo Maran´s research project (2009-2012) "Dynamical Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations" ( ETF/ESF 7790)
• 6 A main researcher in the 2008-2010 research project "The Cultural Heritage of Environmental Spaces. A Comparative Analysis Between Estonia and Norway" (EEA--ETF Grant EMP 54 - participating until Sept. 30, 2010)
• 7 Senior personnel (2010-2011) in Kalevi Kull's research project "Biosemiotic models of semiosis" (ETF/EST 8403)
• 8 Personnel in the Center of Excellence in Cultural Theory (CECT) semiotics research group 'Meaning-generation and transdisciplinary methodology of semiotic analysis of culture' 2008-2011
• 9 Main organizer of the Tartu workshops on the semiotics/phenomenology of perception (Feb. 2009)
• 9.1 Guest-editor with Kati Lindström of special issue of Biosemiotics (3(3)), 'Semiotics of Perception' (2010), and with Riin Magnus and Nelly Mäekivi of special issue of Hortus Semioticus (no. 6), 'Semiotics of nature' (2010)
• 9.2 Editor with Kadri Tüür of The Semiotics of Animal Representations (Rodopi, forthcoming in 2012)
• 9.3 Editor with Guri Larsen and Ragnhild Sollund of the Norwegian HAS anthology Hvem er villest i landet her? (Spartacus, forthcoming in 2013)
• 9.4 Member of the editorial board of the journal Biosemiotics 2010-
• 9.5 Various assignments (lecturer, examiner, research assistant) for University of Agder and University of Stavanger 2009 - 2011
• 9.6 Secretary and national representative for Norway in the Nordic Association for Semiotic Studies 2011-
• 9.7 Minding Animals Norway Alternative Representative in Minding Animals International's Board of Directors, August 2011-; and board member for (and founding member of) Minding Animals Norway
• 9.8 Founding member and member of the board of "Arne i 100", an NGO celebrating the 100 year anniversary of Arne Næss (1912-2009) August 2011-
• 9.9 Member of Nordic Society for Phenomenology 2009-, Nordic HAS 2010-, Concerned Scientists Norway 2011-

Arne i 100 on Twitter

Arne i 100, which has been founded to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the birth of philosopher Arne Næss, is now on Twitter (arnei100).

A website on our own domain is straight around the corner. For now at least I am both webmaster and responsible for the Twitter account.

Update on Arne Næss celebration

The work of the committee preparing the celebration of the 100th year anniversary of the birth of Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss, "Arne i 100", is progressing. As I wrote in a post almost a month ago, we had a founding meeting August 25. However, following some complications and correspondence back and forth, in which I was involved, it was only a few days back that we received the confirmation that Arne i 100 has been accepted and registered as a non-profit NGO. The objective of the NGO, in its shortest form, is to "videreføre den filosofiske arven etter Arne Næss", namely to "carry on the philosophical legacy of Arne Naess".

Some in our group has met with Arne Hjeltnes, who will host the anniversary event January 27th 2012 in the university aula of the University of Oslo. Further names have been confirmed, and we have secured some more funding from public and private sources (the latter includes the Norwegian Ministry of Environment). We are also developing plans for marking 2011-2012 as a "Arne Næss year", though most of our focus has thusfar been on the anniversary event on the day 100 years after Arne's birth.

Revised contents for my doctoral dissertation

Below is the revised table of contents for my doctoral dissertation Umwelt Transition: Uexküllian Phenomenology - An Ecosemiotic Analysis of Norwegian Wolf Management, on which I have been working intensely for the last few weeks. This compares with the contents as previously outlined in Semi-detailed table of contents (posted in March). That outline, however, presented only two of the three levels of numbering used previously. All in all I had some 660 subdivisions. Now I have 117. Much more manageable, but still so inter-disciplinary as to be really challenging, and of incredibly wide scope, if I dare say so myself.

Detailed table of contents

Contents at a glance

Detailed table of contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

Chapter 1 Making Sense of Nature

§1. Introduction

§2. Toward a phenomenology of environmental change

§3. From self to world

§4. The notion of integrated biological individualism

§5. On the levels of biosemiosis

§6. Earth - the natural (and absolute) setting for the human condition

§7 Husserl’s notion of the Lebenswelt

§8 The notion of Uexküllian phenomenology

§9 The notion of semiotics of being

§10 Research questions

§11 Methodology

§12. The Umwelt theory of Jakob von Uexküll

§13. Uexküll’s visual representations

§14. Uexküll’s metaphors: Bubble, web, melody

§15. How 'partner' is to be interpreted (whether social companions in general are to be included)

§16. How 'food' is to be interpreted (whether resources in general are to be included)

§17. On the forms of life

§18. Ontological and epistemological outlook

§19. An anecdote on the role of fiction in the natural sciences

§20. Implications for the scientific enterprise at large

§21. Uexküllian thought after Uexküll

§22. Problems in contemporary ethological approaches to nature

§23. Problems in contemporary semiotic approaches to nature

§24. Changing views on a changing nature

§25. The topic of change

§26. On the current ecological situation

§27. Umwelt typology – systematic outline

§28. What is subjective biology today?

Chapter 2 Uexküllian Phenomenology

§29. Introduction: Uexküll and phenomenology

§30. On the notion of phenomenology

§31. The phenomenology of Charles Sanders Peirce

§32. Remarks on contemporary eco-phenomenology

§33. Semiotics and phenomenology

§34. Introducing a universal, twofold notion of self: The explicit and the implicit self

§35. Problems of phenomenology

§36. Problems of ontology

§37. Existential universals

§38. Communal being and distinctive being

§39. On the forms of existence

§40. The notion of swarm Umwelten

§41. Development of a typology of Umwelt transitions

§42. Modern Umwelten

§43. The search image in social life

§44. Further theoretical developments

§45. Playful Umwelten

Chapter 3 The Semiotics of the Ecological Crisis

§46. Introduction: The trajectory of a crisis

§47. Fragment of a metalogue: On the transition from naïve animal to semiotic animal

§48. Semiosis and crisis

§49. On matters of diversity and extinction

§50. The semiotics of domestication and related phenomena

§51. Anthropocene studies: The global species

§52. Favoured vs. unfavoured species – a hypothesis

§53. On matters of ethics and economy

§54. Ecological alienation

§55. Developing the perspective of Umwelt alignment

§56. Simplified management models for human-animal relations: Integration, segregation (assimilation)

§57. The long-term goal for wildlife management: Independent viability?

§58. Characteristic developments in the modern era

§59. Current developments

Chapter 4 Umwelt Mapping

§60. Introduction: On mapping semiosis at the level of the organism, and higher levels

§61. On matters of quality and quantity

§62. The notion of semiotic causation

§63. Mapping human Umwelten

§64. Mapping human impact

§65. Distinguishing between formal and informal human impact

§66. Mapping status as (un)favoured

§67. First examples of ontological maps

§68. Introducing a tripartite model of the human Umwelt

§69. Methodological challenges

§70. Developing the notion of relational Umwelt maps

§71. Developing the notion of phenomenal fields

§72. Further models and visual representations

Chapter 5 Case study: Norwegian Wolf Management

§73. Introduction: Prelude to the Norwegian wolf wars

§74. Field trips

§75. Preliminary remarks on wolf hunting

§76. Remarks on Arne Næss’ philosophy of wolf management

§77. The cultural semiotic of wolves and sheep

§78. Contextual encircling of the topic matter of the case study

§79. Geographical treatment

§80. The situation for Norwegian sheep farmers and agriculture

§81. The symbolic construction of the Big Bad Wolf in contemporary Scandinavia

§82. Conflict areas in current wolf management

§83. Controversial questions in the current debate

§84. Conspiracy theories

§85. On matters of democracy, empowerment and knowledge regimes

§86. Management strategies

§87. Management methods

§88. On matters of legality

§89. Historical exposition – the era of extermination campaigns

§90. Historical exposition – the era of conservation efforts

§91. Contemporary exposition (2006-2011)

§92. Field trip interviews

§93. Summary of findings: The Umwelt of captive wolves in general and socialised wolves in particular

§94. Summary of findings: The nature view and worldview of people in Rendalen

§95. Mapping of the Umwelt of wolves in Norway

§96. Mapping of the Umwelt of sheep and other relevant animals in Norway

§97. Mapping of the Umwelt of selected groups of Norwegians

§98. Analysis: The wolf and other symbols

§99. Analysis of Norwegian wolf ecology in terms of the semiotic niche and ontological niche concepts

§100. Analysis: Matters of management philosophy, and further analysis

§101. To what extent are wolves a favoured species in contemporary Norway?

§102. To what extent are sheep a favoured species in contemporary Norway?

§103. Analysis: Umwelt transitions

§104. Future perspectives: Deep and shallow solutions

§105. Umwelt futurology: Three Umwelt scenarios

Chapter 6 Umwelt Transition

§106. Introduction: Theoretical findings

§107. To what extent can the case study findings be generalized?

§108. In search of the wolf’s perspective

§109. Evaluation of theoretical assumptions

§110. Evaluation of the methodology of Umwelt mapping

§111. On further methodological development

§112. Umwelt transition and animal migration

§113. On Umwelt transitions as habitual

§114. On recolonization as a habitual Umwelt transition

§115. On further theoretical development

§116. Towards an ethics of semiotics of being

§117. On the prospects of Umwelt futurology

"Arne i 100" founded as NGO

Yesterday, August 25th, "Arne i 100" [Arne, 100...] was founded in Oslo, Norway, as an association/society aiming to celebrate the 100 year anniversary of deep ecologist Arne Næss' (1912-2009) birth January 27th 2012 (in the University Aula, Oslo), and to help arrange "the Arne Næss year" 2012-2013. I took part via Skype. I was thus one of the seven co-founders of the NGO, along with Kit-Fai Næss and others. I was also included as a member of the board, along with 8 others (Kit-Fai Næss (head), Martin Lee Mueller, Reidar Goffeng, Inger Marie Mørner, Arne Johan Furseth, Carl Fredrik Normann, Ola Tellesbø and Anders Krosshavn Vik).

I had proposals/questions concerning up to 6 of the paragraphs of the regulations (vedtekter). At least half of these were followed up by making amendments to the original draft.

My comment to Ross Wolfe's Marxist critique of the environmental movement

I have on request commented Ross Wolfe's article-long blog post "Man and Nature, Part IV: A Marxist Critique of the 'Green' Environmental Movement". His blog is called The charnel-house: Historico-philosophical notes. My comment is repeated in full below (with a handful of typos still in place, as in the original).

In accordance with the title and slogan of my academic blog, "Utopian Realism", I pride myself of acknowledging the importance of being empirically informed about past and current ecological and social developments globally, and to the extent possible to have an informed view of possible future societies. I am generally aligned with deep ecology in Arne Næss' sense, and further somewhat aligned with anarchism - and Gandhism. Plus I am a vegetarian with a preference for organic produce of milk and egg. So should I feel attacked? Yes and no. My response will predominantly have the form of reference to empirical reality. Ideology carried out in isolation from empirical reality is always irrelevant, if not outright dangerous.

You write that small-scale organic farming is "an elitist phenomenon not only in the smug sense of ethical virtue that comes with buying organic or local, but also in a very real, economic sense". There is something to your points as to pricing of products from organic farming. Yes, organic farming is labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive (relatively speaking). However, I do not regard that a weakness of organic farming. Industrialized agriculture is characterized in economic terms by being capital-intensive. Now, the price of labour varies significantly (extremely) globally, and this is particularly visible and manifest within global agriculture. The price of machinery and such, on the other hand, is in comparison approximately equal globally (though local varietions in labour costs and taxes etc. spill over to some extent on local costs of machinery as well). Does this make organic farming potentially more of a rich-country phenomenon? Not necessarily (that depends on your exact definition of organic farming). Fair trade initiatives at their best could in principle allow for more labour-intensive agriculture than what is the norm locally in poorer countries as well (note that the very poorest countries have much less machinery in use in their agriculture today, which in part explains their low productivity (yields) in mainstream terms). Use of more machinery is always presented as cost-effective and as increasing productivity. The ways in which labour is priced - valued, though, can change the whole picture.

You diss the greens' preference for family farming. This is not only an ‘organic’ longing, however, but quite widespread in many declining rural societies. As a matter of fact, of course, a major transition is going on globally from small-scale family farming to industrialized agriculture with little labour and high productivity bought by way of capital investment. Whereas many of these family farms were initially subsistence farms (in a society where most poeple were farmwers), we are now about to leave a transitional phase where there have been a lot of family farms operating on market terms in a society where they have been a declining minority. This declining trend reflects increases in productivity and capital-intensity. In Norway - to use an example I am well informed about - there are very few family farms left (only approximately one out of ten farms are run by husband and wife who have no other occupation), and the number is rapidly declining. Even more telling is the fact that a majority of Norwegian farmers have more income from other jobs or activities than they do from their farming activity. It is thus not only the traditional family farm that is threatened, but equally important the farming profession as a full-time occupation. Now we can always discuss whether or not this is a social problem. I'd argue that it is.

And not only is it a social problem from a human point of view. It is further a social problem from the point of view of many farm animals. The declining number of farmers is not only mirrored in increased productivity and capital-intensity. These trends are both reflected in a steadily increasing ration of livestock per farmer. Engendering animal equivalents of mass societies, this is surely a social problem in its own right, and a characteristic feature of industrial agriculture. My claim is that we can legitimately talk about "ecological alienation" in many of these cases (think about chicken - some of which perversely advertised as 'free-range' - that share a floor with thousands of others and never see daylight).

Yet another parallel to declinging farmer numbers, increasing productivity and increasing ratios livestock/farmer is the increasing ratio of land per farmer which we see occuring in Western farming (in other parts of the world, the situation is quite another - namely, societies under demographic pressure (with rapidly increasing populations) and in lack of arable land often have to deal with the problem of having smaller and smaller pieces of land for the poor rurals. Here, what used to be a somewhat sustainable model of ‘subsistence-farming’ is in danger of being transformed to a specifically modern kind of poverty and misery).

You write: "To generalize the practice of local farming and small shops would mean a regression to a quasi-feudal state of existence, with massive urban depopulation and the death of probably 95% of the Earth’s people." Not necessarily so. "Local farming" and "small shops" can come in so many variations, so we cannot generalize this way. A local society I happen to know which is full of small shops is that of Suruí in the municipality of Magé in the Brazilian state of Rio de Janeiro. I much enjoyed getting to know where everything was to be found - an exercise which took months, since it implied getting to know the whole neigbourhood, where many had small shops and bars and workshops etc., some of which with regular opening hours, others open whenever a customer knocked. I cannot see how the West's supermarket-model is necessarily representative of a higher level of civilization, nor how it should be taken to be superior in social terms. There is no de-urbanization involved, and much less any mass-death.

You write: “The Malthusian theory of a limit-point to the growth of population was materially disproven by the industrial revolution taking place before his very eyes.” While there is something to that as to his concrete theory, the industrial revolution proved nothing at all with regard to how many people the Earth can sustain. In particular, it did not at all prove that there are no limits whatsoever to how many the Earth can sustain. This remains a question of in part empirical nature. It is both conceivable

1) that the Earth can sustain a bigger human population that it does today, and

2) that the Earth can in the long turn only sustain a somewhat smaller human population than today BUT AT THE COST OF ITS MEDIUM-TERM CARRYING CAPACITY.

In other words, it is also conceivable that even maintaining today’s human population level will over time weaken the Earth’s carrying potential with regard to us. Besides, there are ethical issues concerning how big share of this planet’s land and resources we are to reserve for ourselves, and how much we let be available for other creatures (not counting our ‘affiliated species’ in agriculture, which are basically tools for our own ends).

While your claim that making local farming the only norm would mean the death of 95% is wildly exaggerated and as such erronous, it is true that organic and non-intensive farming is as a rule more land- and labour-intensive alike. This must pose a paradox to any well-informed green. One implication is that if all of today's agricultural produce was made organic, we would likely need to cultivate even more land (and one third of the Earth's total land mass is already in use for human food production, pastures etc. included). In that sense there is even a potential conflict between organic farming and food security for a growing human population (which will grow at least for another 30-40 years).

We must recall, however, that very much of today's land use in agriculture is tied to meat consumption. So here vegetarianism and organic farming are allies: The more vegetarians there are (or, to modify, the lower the meat consumption), the more organic farming do we have room for. On a utopian planet where everyone were vegetarians, we would have room for global, fully organic farming, PLUS we would be able to leave more land for wildlife. This ultimate combination is indeed possible. A global organic diet with a high share of meat is much less realistic, and would be much less environmentally friendly.

Let me also mention "The vegetarian's (or vegan's) paradox", which I have described in http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/tonnessen311.pdf: "vegetarians, and especially radical ones, such as vegans, might face some paradoxes. For example: In a world of vegans — with no animal products consumed nor produced — what would be the fate of domesticated animals? ... In a vegan world, we would be left with two alternatives: Either we could keep them in zoos or as a sort of pets, or we would have to let them go extinct. What the vegan should ask herself is: Is an animal that depends on human beings for its pure existence really better off not existing?" A vegetarian's response to this paradix is telling of his or her values. It is fully possible to reply that domesticated animals are better off not existing, but if that is a vegetarian's position, it reveals that his/her dietary preference is NOT put into effect for the sake of the animals the vegetarian does not eat. Perhaps for the sake of wildlife, or for a kind of ethical purity?

I will not say much about Arne Næss and his view on population, but let me mention that I think his view on population control was not very fruitful (and I am saying this as a former student of demography). Nevertheless I share his vision of a human population that is in the long term substantially smaller than today's population. By long term we are talking about a transitional phase with pretty even decline in world population lasting for 300-1000 years (anything quicker would be inhumane, if we are talking about a deline on the scale of minus 90%). Næss himself underlined the importance of thinking about this only in a long-term perspective. He claimed to be reformistic on the short term, but revolutionary in the long term, and in the case of his view on population I think that is quite accurate (he used to talk about 100 kids being born this year, 99 the next, 98 the third...). One could argue in favor of such a development even without bringing in the intrinsic value of nature and other creatures. A somewhat lower world population in the long term would arguably increase the chance that future societies will be able to offer their citizens lives in abundance rather than misery.

As my idea about a transitional phase of 300-1000 years with regard to demography illustrates, I believe in developing and preparing something worthy of the name "a new civilization". My ideology of utopian realism presupposes that we can talk about three historical phases in this context:

1) Our age (the modern age, if you like)

2) A transitional phase - era of adjustment

3) A truly sustainable society

Following the deep ecology of Arne Næss, I believe that this desired development would entail profound changes in philosophy, science, economy, and ideology. Though much change would occur in our generation, my perspective implies that the change that can occur in our lifetimes would only mark the beginning of this new path in the development of humanity. We could initiate revolutionary change, and prepare revolutionary change, but not complete it.

You write: "What we are faced with is thus clear: either we must accept the renaturalization of humanity, or, inversely, the humanization (or socialization) of nature." A dangerous and simplified choice, I think - though, if we take it seriously, you seem to be winning as we speak. This maxime further reminds me of Heidegger's talk in "The fundamental concepts of metaphysics" about the human need for making itself at home in the world - by, I would argue, making the whole planet Earth its home, qua humanized. This is a valid perspective on human alienation. But it is a poor real-life solution of our existential problem (especially since we never will feel fully at home no matter how much we make the Earth "our own").

You write that your vision would entail "both the transformation of man and nature." “The Marxist vision of an emancipated society is one of abundance and plenitude, not of scarcity and shortage." Abundance of what? On a even further "humanized" planet, there would surely not be much abundance in wildlife. Is not that a kind of abundance that can enrich our lives as well? And as I have argued above, future economic abundance in future societies is more likely if we know to limit ourselves and to leave room for other creatures as well.

"It is a vision of unlimited human freedom," you write, "not within the constraints of an ascetic lifestyle.” Unlimited in what sense? On what planet? You seem in your concluding marxist vision to be neglecting empirical reality and our embeddedness in nature and on this concrete planet.

Keynes wrote in the wake of the Great Depression about humankind's age-old fight to overcome poverty - the problem of Man. His article was called ”Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren”. We can rightfully ask whether the "utopian" future society he sketched therein, a society where Man's problem would have been solved, has to a large extent been achieved. There are still poor people on this planet (and addressing that remains a core political task), but today a vast majority globally do not live in material misery. The global growth of the last 80 years has surpassed Keynes expectations. At what point will we realize that past utopias of a "society of abundance" has largely been achieved?

PS: For an evaluation of different scenarios about global economic growth up to the year of 2300, see my journal article "The future of growth", http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19644/.