[FrassyLap]

See, THAT was a decent answer! I am totally happy with it. I may in fact learn something from it - thank you.

EDIT:

Can we talk then?

(Please note, that none of the following questions is meant to be provocative - i´d just like to hear your opinion on them)

So, let´s assume, that we are approaching (or already have crossed) the limit of ressource and energy consumption and waste-sink-capacities - i take it, that you think, that capitalism is absolutely able to adept to that situation, and would, if needed, go to a steady-state economy. How so? By forces of the ´invisible hand´, or would interference from outside, say eco-taxes, internalization of costs or something else, be needed? In other words: If you were an almost allmighty politician (assuming there would be somthing like that), and believed (take this as another assumption) that our ecological ´footprint´ (basically the sum of what was mentioned above) was to big soon or already - what would your politics look like? Roughly, please. Please, if you find the time, also eloborate a little on the chances of implementing such a policy under real world conditions.

You said, that the economy wants (rather than ´has to´ - i am willing to concede this point for sake of discussion for now) to grow. I wonder, if you agree with my estimanition, that a raise in eco-efficiency could not keep up with a constant economic growth for an infinite period of time. If you do, how would you ´force´ the economy not to follow that want to grow? Or would it, in your opinion, stop growing all on its own, before its too late?

Cause, you see, my concern is not to attack capitalism per se - my concern is the environment.