Cheesy tagline of the day: Mother Nature doesn't do bailouts.

I'm pretty skeptical of claims that certain contemporary events are watersheds of humanity. I don't know what Johannes Gutenberg's buddies said to him when he started cranking his press, but I doubt it was, "Holy scheisse, dude, this is going to change EVERYTHING." 

As such, I think Thomas Friedman's claim that 2008 is going to be looked back on as the year that the hoomins woke up and decided to alter the course of society is overstated. I do, however, think he has a damn good point when he says that things cannot just keep growing for growth's sake. I get that the economy is in the shitter, but whenever I read that it is because there was only slight positive growth in a particular sector, my eyes to do not well up with tears. I get that more people are being born, and therefore that we should be on an up-and-to-the-right trajectory on the Chart of Life, but how much growth is enough? Can't we just kind of keep pace, and expect some stops and starts as population numbers change? 

In short, what's the deal with the supposed necessity of constant and exponential increases in consumption? I am pretty damn consumption-focused, and I still think we need to chill out.

But then again, I did go pass-fail in Econ to avoid a D. So.