The author states that we have to 'correct the value system that have led us to destroy it' - it being the planet. But planet Earth is fine - it's our kids' future that's at risk. Then he states that we have to 'go forward' - a meaningless term. What is 'forward'? If that means R&D, then yes. But if it means more consumerism, then no. Does 'forward mean more GDP growth? More value for shareholders?? What, in any case, is meant by 'growth'? Endless growth is the creed of the cancer cell.

What we need is for H. 'sapiens' to accept that our entire global economy is an energy system; that money is merely a proxy, an i.o.u. for available energy. Since the industrial revolution we've benefitted from millions of years' worth of solar energy concentrated via photosythesis into fossil fuels. That is no longer tenable. It follows that what we really need is an understanding that more is not better. Poverty needs eliminating but excess wealth does not equate to well-being and happiness; that individuals who sequester bizarre amounts of wealth are essentially parasitic. We need to accept that equilibrium means what it says - a steady state in terms of energy throughput, mineral use and reuse, and human population. Anything else is simply a deluded attempt to flout the laws of thermodynamics.