1977
DOI: 10.1016/0016-3287(77)90022-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The two visions of post-industrial society

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
3

Year Published

1980
1980
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
10
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, in a wide-ranging critique of opposition to nuclear power, an energy source that he believes necessary for continued economic growth and prosperity, Nisbet (1979) views such opposition as a manifestation of declining &dquo;faith in progress.&dquo; By implication, then, continued growth and prosperity could be guaranteed (ecological scarcity notwithstanding) if only we could restore that faith. Similarly, Bell (1977: 18), in a strong defense of economic growth and a scathing attack on the idea of physical limits to growth, assures readers that, &dquo;If one thinks only in physical terms, then it is likely that one does not need to worry about ever running out of resources.&dquo; This unecological view is consistent, of course, with his long-held vision of a &dquo;post-industrial society,&dquo; premised as that view is on absence of ecological constraints such as resource scarcity (Marien, 1977). Bell does, however, acknowledge the possibility that there may be &dquo;social limits to growth.&dquo; If there are limits to the development of human societies, Bell seems to be saying, they must be social rather than physical.…”
Section: Conclusion: the Probable Future Of The Paradigmsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…For example, in a wide-ranging critique of opposition to nuclear power, an energy source that he believes necessary for continued economic growth and prosperity, Nisbet (1979) views such opposition as a manifestation of declining &dquo;faith in progress.&dquo; By implication, then, continued growth and prosperity could be guaranteed (ecological scarcity notwithstanding) if only we could restore that faith. Similarly, Bell (1977: 18), in a strong defense of economic growth and a scathing attack on the idea of physical limits to growth, assures readers that, &dquo;If one thinks only in physical terms, then it is likely that one does not need to worry about ever running out of resources.&dquo; This unecological view is consistent, of course, with his long-held vision of a &dquo;post-industrial society,&dquo; premised as that view is on absence of ecological constraints such as resource scarcity (Marien, 1977). Bell does, however, acknowledge the possibility that there may be &dquo;social limits to growth.&dquo; If there are limits to the development of human societies, Bell seems to be saying, they must be social rather than physical.…”
Section: Conclusion: the Probable Future Of The Paradigmsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…These jobs are often itinerant positions related to natural resource extraction, the international travel industry, infrastructure construction, and 5 Economists are developing new insights from these systems and the communities they serve. This new branch of economics is called obligational theory.…”
Section: Balancing the Export Basementioning
confidence: 99%
“…(4) Present the key factors and relevant trends by importance and uncertainty. (5) If writing multiple scenarios, choose the ways in which each will differ. (6) Add more details, such as descriptions of daily life.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations