With a considerable part of the world mired in poverty, zero economic growth seems like a convenient way for the affluent West to secure its own economic advantage for all time.
The problem with capitalism is not that it grows too fast, but that it puts chains on the further development of the forces of production.
> An end to production for
>the sake of accumulation, and a start to production for basic needs,
Why only 'basic needs'? Don't people deserve what are patronisingly called luxuries as well? It seems to me that the system that limits working class consumption to 'basic needs' is already in place: it's called exploitation,
> ecological
>rationality,
Well, there's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. There's nothing rational about ecology.
>and cultural literacy ?
I think you would have to expand a bit on that one.... .
>Non-autocentric green cities w/hazard
>zoning doubling as public parks,
You don't like cars either? Back to the horse and trap? Travel is the essence of cosmopolitanism. If you don't have a superior alternative to the car for individual transport then you don't mean cities, you mean villages (with all the attendant village idiocy).
>locally-oriented agriculture,
Why local? An international division of labour is one of capitalism's greatest achievements. Freed from its profit-oriented form it could become the basis of an end to hunger.
>and "wilderness
>areas" not for elite enviros but for the masses (access to which would be
>rationed
>out) ?
I don't suppose that you would have to do much rationing, since most people are averse to real wilderness. But you should know that governments all over the world are already introducing wilderness areas, not for human but for capitalistic aims. Retiring land from cultivation is the normal means of dealing with capitalist 'overproduction' (relative to the market, not human need that is). -- James Heartfield