Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards-SFT-phase2-v2

like 0

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Growth is unsustainable and innovation can’t solve---degrowth spurred by crisis is the only chance to avoid extinction", "role": "system" }, { "content": "worldwide growth in affluence has\nincreased resource use and\nemissions far more rapidly than\nreduced through\ntech\naffluent citizens\nare responsible for most environmental impacts\nAny transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements\nexisting societies, economies and cultures incite\nexpansion and the structural imperative for growth\ninhibits necessary societal change\nscientists’ warnings confirm alarming trends of environmental degradation\nleading to profound changes in essential life-sustaining functions\nhumanity has failed to find lasting solutions to these changes that pose existential threats\nconsumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant and\nstrongest accelerator of increases of global environmental and social impacts\nHolistic studies of the environmental or social consequences of consumption usually involve the use of life-cycle assessment or input-output analysis that do not only account for direct\non-site, within-territory\nbut importantly also include indirect impacts occurring along global and complete supply chains8\nuse of such methods is important, because failing to detect the outsourcing of indirect impacts\nhas the potential to seriously undermine global environmental abatement efforts\nThe implications of consumption on scarce energy resources\nwas confirmed by many consumption-based analyses on indicators as varied as CO2\nraw materials\npollution, biodiversity, nitrogen\nscarce water use or energy\nMany of these studies employed multiple regression\nyielding clear evidence\nthat consumption is by far the strongest determinant of global impacts, dwarfing other socio-economic–demographic factors such as age, household size, qualification or dwelling structure\nWhilst the strength of the proportionality between consumption and impact decreases slightly towards higher incomes (measured by so-called elasticities), consumption was found to be a consistently positive driver\nthe impact intensity of consumption decreases, but absolute impacts increase towards higher consumption. Absolute decoupling, let alone an inverted-U-type Kuznets relationship, does not occur\nFor some social indicators, causal associations between consumption and impact are weak or non-existent. For example, withdrawing consumption from countries with unequal wages, child labour, corruption or severe occupational hazards may not influence those conditions, and might even exacerbate social problems.\nconsumption\ngrowth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades\nresults hold for the entire world\nas well as for numerous individual countries\nThe overwhelming evidence\nis that globally, burgeoning consumption has diminished or cancelled out\ngains\nFurthermore, low-income groups are rapidly occupying middle- and high-income brackets around the world. This can\nfurther exacerbate the impacts of mobility-related consumption, which has been shown to disproportionately increase with income\nthe elasticity is larger than one\nThis means that if consumption is not addressed\ntechnological solutions will face an uphill battle\nthey not only have to bring about reductions of impact but will also need to counteract the effects of growing consumption and affluence\nTo avoid further deterioration and irreversible damage\nthere will need to be a global and rapid decoupling\nit is highly unlikely that such\nwill occur\nrapidly enough at global scale and for other environmental impacts\nbecause renewable energy, electrification\ncarbon-capturing technologies and even services all have resource requirements, mostly in the form of metals, concrete and land31\nRising energy demand and costs of resource extraction\ntechnical limitations and rebound effects aggravate the problem28\npolicy makers have to acknowledge the fact that addressing environmental breakdown may require a\ndownscaling of\nproduction and consumption\nSince the level of consumption determines total impacts, affluence needs to be addressed by reducing consumption, not just greening it\nprevailing capitalist, growth-driven economic systems have not only increased affluence\nbut have led to enormous increases in inequality, financial instability, resource consumption and environmental pressures\nin the affluent countries a persistent, deep and widespread reduction of consumption and production would reduce economic growth as measured by\nGDP\nIn response\ndrivers of affluence\nDegrowth\ndefined\nas “an equitable downscaling of throughput\nwith a concomitant securing of wellbeing\naimed at a subsequent downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.\ndoes not aim for a reduction of GDP per se, but rather accepts it as a likely outcome of the necessary changes78\ntransition initiatives\nprefigur\nthe transformation as well as cultural and value changes\na necessary precondition for wider radical change\nIt is important to recognise the pivotal role of\nmovements in this process, which can bring forward social tipping points through complex\nreinforcing feedbacks\nand create windows of opportunity from crises\nLong-term and concurrent human and planetary wellbeing will not be achieved\nif affluent overconsumption continues, spurred by economic systems that exploit nature\ninternational trade mechanisms allow the rich world to displace its impact to the global poor. Not only can a sufficient decoupling of environmental and detrimental social impacts from economic growth not be achieved by technological innovation alone, but also the profit-driven mechanism of prevailing economic systems prevents the necessary reduction of impacts and resource utilisation per se.\nthe digital revolution—and more broadly the Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR) with converging, step-change innovations in digital technology, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, 3D-printing, biotechnology and nanotechnology—has been touted as an enabler of absolute decoupling\nWhile digitalisation is already a key driving force in societal transformation, it has so far led to more consumption and inequality and remained coupled with the indirect use of energy and materials, therefore sustaining resource-intensive and greenhouse-gas growth patterns\nWhile the digital revolution undoubtedly increases labour productivity\nit remains to be seen whether the same is true for resource productivity\nEven if the FIR were to achieve absolute decoupling, this would come at a potentially high risk for privacy, liberty, data sovereignty, civic rights, security, equality and democracy\nWhat is needed are convincing and viable solutions at the systems level\nA wide debate in society\nis necessary\nThe necessary alternative futures need to be\nenvisioned and shared", "role": "user" }, { "content": "affluence\nincreased resource use\nemissions far more rapidly\nreduced\ntech\nmost environmental impacts\nonly be effective\nfar-reaching lifestyle changes\nexpansion\nimperative for growth\ninhibit\nwarn\ndegradation\nlife-sustaining functions\nfailed\nexistential threats\naffluent\nstrongest determinant\nstrongest accelerator\nHolistic\nlife-cycle\nonly\ncount\ndirect\nindirect\nglobal\ncomplete supply chains\nfailing\noutsourcing\nundermine global environmental abatement efforts\nCO2\nmaterials\npollution\nbiod\nnitrogen\nwater\nenergy\nMany\nstudies\nyield\nclear ev\nstrongest determinant\ndwarfing other\ns\nconsistently positive driver\nabsolute\nincrease\nhigher consumption\nAbsolute\nalone\ninverted-U-type Kuznets relationship\nnot occur\nexacerbate\noutrun any beneficial effects\ntech\nentire world\nindividual countries\noverwhelming ev\nglobally\ndiminished\ncancelled out\ngains\nmiddle- and high-income brackets\nfurther exacerbate\nincrease with income\nlarger than one\nconsumption\ntech\nface an uphill battle\ncounteract\nfurther deterioration\nirreversible damage\nglobal and rapid decoupling\nhighly unlikely\nrapid\nenough\nglobal scale\nrenewable\nelectrification\ncarbon-captur\nservices\nrequire\nmetals\nconcrete\nland\nenergy demand\nextraction\ntech\nlimit\ns\nrebound\ns aggravate\ndownscaling of\nproduction and consumption\nconsumption\nneed\nreducing\nnot just greening it\ninequality\ninstability\nresource consumption\nenvironmental pressures\nreduce economic growth\nGDP\ndrivers\nDegrowth\nsteady-state economic system\nsocially just\nbalance\ntransition initiatives\nprefigur\ntransformation\ncultural\nvalue changes\nprecondition\nmovements\nsocial tipping points\ncomplex\nreinforcing feedbacks\nwindows of opportunity\ncrises\nnot be achieved\nexploit nature\ngrowth not be achieved\nprevents\nnecessary reduction of impacts and resource utilisation\ndigital rev\ntouted\nenabler of absolute decoupling\ntransformation\nmore consumption and inequality\nremained coupled\nsustaining resource-intensive and greenhouse-gas growth patterns\nlabour\nresource\nneeded\nconvincing and viable solutions at the systems level\ndebate in society\nalternative futures\nenvisioned\nshared", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Growth is unsustainable and innovation can’t solve---degrowth spurred by crisis is the only chance to avoid extinction\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2", "role": "system" }, { "content": "worldwide growth in affluence has\nincreased resource use and\nemissions far more rapidly than\nreduced through\ntech\naffluent citizens\nare responsible for most environmental impacts\nAny transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements\nexisting societies, economies and cultures incite\nexpansion and the structural imperative for growth\ninhibits necessary societal change\nscientists’ warnings confirm alarming trends of environmental degradation\nleading to profound changes in essential life-sustaining functions\nhumanity has failed to find lasting solutions to these changes that pose existential threats\nconsumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant and\nstrongest accelerator of increases of global environmental and social impacts\nHolistic studies of the environmental or social consequences of consumption usually involve the use of life-cycle assessment or input-output analysis that do not only account for direct\non-site, within-territory\nbut importantly also include indirect impacts occurring along global and complete supply chains8\nuse of such methods is important, because failing to detect the outsourcing of indirect impacts\nhas the potential to seriously undermine global environmental abatement efforts\nThe implications of consumption on scarce energy resources\nwas confirmed by many consumption-based analyses on indicators as varied as CO2\nraw materials\npollution, biodiversity, nitrogen\nscarce water use or energy\nMany of these studies employed multiple regression\nyielding clear evidence\nthat consumption is by far the strongest determinant of global impacts, dwarfing other socio-economic–demographic factors such as age, household size, qualification or dwelling structure\nWhilst the strength of the proportionality between consumption and impact decreases slightly towards higher incomes (measured by so-called elasticities), consumption was found to be a consistently positive driver\nthe impact intensity of consumption decreases, but absolute impacts increase towards higher consumption. Absolute decoupling, let alone an inverted-U-type Kuznets relationship, does not occur\nFor some social indicators, causal associations between consumption and impact are weak or non-existent. For example, withdrawing consumption from countries with unequal wages, child labour, corruption or severe occupational hazards may not influence those conditions, and might even exacerbate social problems.\nconsumption\ngrowth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades\nresults hold for the entire world\nas well as for numerous individual countries\nThe overwhelming evidence\nis that globally, burgeoning consumption has diminished or cancelled out\ngains\nFurthermore, low-income groups are rapidly occupying middle- and high-income brackets around the world. This can\nfurther exacerbate the impacts of mobility-related consumption, which has been shown to disproportionately increase with income\nthe elasticity is larger than one\nThis means that if consumption is not addressed\ntechnological solutions will face an uphill battle\nthey not only have to bring about reductions of impact but will also need to counteract the effects of growing consumption and affluence\nTo avoid further deterioration and irreversible damage\nthere will need to be a global and rapid decoupling\nit is highly unlikely that such\nwill occur\nrapidly enough at global scale and for other environmental impacts\nbecause renewable energy, electrification\ncarbon-capturing technologies and even services all have resource requirements, mostly in the form of metals, concrete and land31\nRising energy demand and costs of resource extraction\ntechnical limitations and rebound effects aggravate the problem28\npolicy makers have to acknowledge the fact that addressing environmental breakdown may require a\ndownscaling of\nproduction and consumption\nSince the level of consumption determines total impacts, affluence needs to be addressed by reducing consumption, not just greening it\nprevailing capitalist, growth-driven economic systems have not only increased affluence\nbut have led to enormous increases in inequality, financial instability, resource consumption and environmental pressures\nin the affluent countries a persistent, deep and widespread reduction of consumption and production would reduce economic growth as measured by\nGDP\nIn response\ndrivers of affluence\nDegrowth\ndefined\nas “an equitable downscaling of throughput\nwith a concomitant securing of wellbeing\naimed at a subsequent downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.\ndoes not aim for a reduction of GDP per se, but rather accepts it as a likely outcome of the necessary changes78\ntransition initiatives\nprefigur\nthe transformation as well as cultural and value changes\na necessary precondition for wider radical change\nIt is important to recognise the pivotal role of\nmovements in this process, which can bring forward social tipping points through complex\nreinforcing feedbacks\nand create windows of opportunity from crises\nLong-term and concurrent human and planetary wellbeing will not be achieved\nif affluent overconsumption continues, spurred by economic systems that exploit nature\ninternational trade mechanisms allow the rich world to displace its impact to the global poor. Not only can a sufficient decoupling of environmental and detrimental social impacts from economic growth not be achieved by technological innovation alone, but also the profit-driven mechanism of prevailing economic systems prevents the necessary reduction of impacts and resource utilisation per se.\nthe digital revolution—and more broadly the Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR) with converging, step-change innovations in digital technology, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, 3D-printing, biotechnology and nanotechnology—has been touted as an enabler of absolute decoupling\nWhile digitalisation is already a key driving force in societal transformation, it has so far led to more consumption and inequality and remained coupled with the indirect use of energy and materials, therefore sustaining resource-intensive and greenhouse-gas growth patterns\nWhile the digital revolution undoubtedly increases labour productivity\nit remains to be seen whether the same is true for resource productivity\nEven if the FIR were to achieve absolute decoupling, this would come at a potentially high risk for privacy, liberty, data sovereignty, civic rights, security, equality and democracy\nWhat is needed are convincing and viable solutions at the systems level\nA wide debate in society\nis necessary\nThe necessary alternative futures need to be\nenvisioned and shared", "role": "user" }, { "content": "growth\nincreased resource use and\nemissions\nmore rapidly than\nreduced through\ntech\ncultures\ninhibit\nnecessary\nchange\nscientists’ warn\nof\ndegradation\nto\nlife-sustaining functions\nfailed\nsolutions\npose existential threats\nHolistic studies\ninvolve\nlife-cycle assessment\nnot only\ncount\ndirect\nbut\nalso\nindirect impacts\nalong global\nsupply chains\nbecause\noutsourcing\nundermine\nabatement\non\nCO2\nmaterials\npollution, biod\nnitrogen\nwater\nor energy\nMany\nstudies\nyield\nclear ev\nthat consumption is\nthe strongest determinant\ndwarfing other\ns\nAbsolute decoupling, let alone\nKuznets\ndoes not occur\ngrowth have\noutrun\ntech\nfor the\nworld\nas well as\nindividual countries\nThe overwhelming ev\nis\ntech\nface an uphill battle\nTo avoid\nirreversible damage\nwill need\nglobal\nrapid decoupling\nhighly unlikely\nrapid\nenough at\nscale\nrenewable energy\ncarbon-captur\nand\nservices\nrequire\nmetals, concrete and land\nextraction\ntech\nlimit\ns and rebound\ns aggravate the problem\nneed\nto be addressed by reducing consumption, not just greening\nnecessary\nfor wider\nchange\nmovements\ncan bring\nsocial tipping points through\nreinforcing feedbacks\nand create windows of opportunity from crises\nthe digital rev\nWhile\ndriving\ntransformation\nremained coupled\nsustaining\nintensive\npatterns\nneeded are\nsolutions at the systems level\nA\ndebate in society", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: That does NOT make the practice ‘prohibited.’", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Or to take a more procedural example, judges have used rules of thumb to simplify the discretionary but tedious analysis of attorney fee awards. 210 For example, it is common for judges to critique the practice of \"block billing,\" or not identifying the discrete amount of time used for each attorney task. Some judges have relied on district court precedent to assert that block-billed time should be excluded from fee award calculations altogether, regardless of the relevance of the tasks involved. 211 But when those citation chains are traced back, the prior decisions had instead acknowledged that block billing \"is not a prohibited practice,\" just a disfavored one because it makes the court's effort to review the reasonableness of requested fees more difficult. 212It is thus within the judge's discretion to decide how to evaluate block-billed time. 213When that nuance is dropped in later cases, [*1661] however, the result is a rule of thumb that borders on punishment for bad timekeeping.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "judges have used rules of thumb\nit is common for judges to critique the practice of \"block billing,\"\nBut when those\nchains are traced back, the\ndecisions\nacknowledged that block billing \"is not a prohibited practice,\" just a disfavored one because it makes the court\nreview the reasonableness", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: That does NOT make the practice ‘prohibited.’", "role": "system" }, { "content": "judges have used rules of thumb\nit is common for judges to critique the practice of \"block billing,\"\nBut when those\nchains are traced back, the\ndecisions\nacknowledged that block billing \"is not a prohibited practice,\" just a disfavored one because it makes the court\nreview the reasonableness", "role": "user" }, { "content": "judge\nrules of thumb\ncritique\npractice\ntraced back\nacknowledged\nnot a prohibited practice\ndisfavored\nmakes the court\nreview the reasonableness", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: That does NOT make the practice ‘prohibited.’\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7", "role": "system" }, { "content": "judges have used rules of thumb\nit is common for judges to critique the practice of \"block billing,\"\nBut when those\nchains are traced back, the\ndecisions\nacknowledged that block billing \"is not a prohibited practice,\" just a disfavored one because it makes the court\nreview the reasonableness", "role": "user" }, { "content": "judge\nrules of thumb\ncritique the practice\nBut when\ntraced back, the\ndecisions\nacknowledged that\nis not a prohibited practice,\" just a disfavored one because it makes the court\nreview\nreasonableness", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: *The plan’s contingent on the effects in each individual case. That’s distinct.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In reply, the respondent government argued that the “administrative practices” exception developed by the Commission in relation to interstate cases could not in any circumstances apply to an individual application under Article 25. They submitted that it applied only where an application raised a general issue, distinct from its effects on individuals, and that an individual was incompetent to raise such general issues under Article 25.52 While denying generally that any violation of Article 3 had occurred, the respondent government maintained that, if violations did occur, adequate and effective remedies existed within domestic United Kingdom law which had not been exhausted by the individual applicants.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the\npractices\nexception\ncould not in any circumstances apply to an individual application\nonly where an application raised a general issue, distinct from its effects on individuals", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: *The plan’s contingent on the effects in each individual case. That’s distinct.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\npractices\nexception\ncould not in any circumstances apply to an individual application\nonly where an application raised a general issue, distinct from its effects on individuals", "role": "user" }, { "content": "practices\nnot\nany circumstances\nindividual application\ngeneral issue\ndistinct from its effects\nindividuals", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: *The plan’s contingent on the effects in each individual case. That’s distinct.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.8", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\npractices\nexception\ncould not in any circumstances apply to an individual application\nonly where an application raised a general issue, distinct from its effects on individuals", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the\npractices\nexception\ncould not in any circumstances apply to an individual application\nonly\na general issue, distinct from\neffects on individuals", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: *The plan bans ‘doing x in a way that causes effect y’---that means the object of the prohibition is effect y, NOT practice x.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Normative and economic premises provide policymakers and adjudicators with valuable analytical shortcuts, insofar as they relieve them of the need to establish the merits of the entailed generalizations every single time they interpret and apply the competition rules. This is important in view of the far-reaching implications that the employed premises may have for competition enforcement.\nFirstly, normative assertions and economic propositions are what gives shape to the otherwise vague letter of the antitrust and merger provisions. Arguably, those provisions do not immediately reveal what is prohibited and are in need of elaboration to become operational. In this process, varying perceptions about the goals of the discipline may completely shift the focus of the analysis. 45 For example, if competition law is to be enforced with a view to protecting small- and medium-sized enterprises or employment-as opposed or in addition to, say, promoting consumer welfare-then different effects in the market may become relevant. 46 On the other hand, economic premises about the procompetitive or anticompetitive nature of the conduct at hand typically inform the choice between the application of a 'rule' or a 'standard'. 47 The prohibition, for instance, of cartels as 'by object' violations of antitrust law rests on the economic premise that conduct of this kind lacks any efficiency justification and thus a rule of prima facie illegality is not liable to chill procompetitive behaviour. 48 Conversely, the treatment of quantity rebates as prima facie lawful is grounded in the idea that this type of discount reflects the cost savings achieved by the undertaking in question. 49 In the same vein, the 'by effect' analysis of exclusive dealing under Article 101(1) TFEU is explained by the economic insight that behaviour of this kind may entail efficiencies. 50 Accordingly, normative and economic premises are instrumental in the construction of competition law.\nIt is worth noting at this point that in the EU the 'by object' test has been occasionally portrayed as a presumption of actual or likely anticompetitive effects. Arguably, the language employed by the EU Courts is partly to blame for this. 51 In Cartes Bancaires, for instance, the Court of Justice explained that 'certain collusive behaviour, such as that leading to horizontal price-fixing by cartels, may be considered so likely to have negative effects ( ... ), that it may be considered redundant ( ... ) to prove that they have actual effects on the market', since 'experience shows that such behaviour leads to falls in production and price increases, resulting in poor allocation of resources to the detriment, in particular, of consumers'. 52 This wording though is confusing, insofar as it may create the misimpression that a finding of 'by object' violation rests on a presumption-in the technical sense of the word-of the existence of actual or likely anticompetitive effects in the circumstances at hand. Considering that presumptions shift the burden of proof, in this case it should be open to undertakings to challenge such a finding by showing that their cartel agreement, for instance, was never implemented or that the presumed negative effects are unlikely to occur. Nevertheless, the EU Courts' jurisprudence demonstrates that such arguments may not reverse a finding of 'by object' liability. 53 Consequently, to speak of a presumption of actual or likely anticompetitive effects is incorrect.\nSecondly, premises also play a fundamental role in the design of administrative priorities-that is, the identification of cases on which the authority will choose to expend its limited resources to maximize the return on taxpayers' money. For instance, if the goal is to promote consumer welfare, then it of course makes sense to prioritize investigations into practices which may have a bigger impact on it. Economic premises are critical in this screening exercise, since they can guide administrative agencies in detecting the most but also least 'problematic' types of behaviour in view of the pursued objective.\nFor example, the prioritization of cartel enforcement worldwide rests on the economic insight that cartel conduct is among the most harmful for competition and consumers. Conversely, the development of 'safe harbours' setting out the circumstances where an authority is unlikely to intervene is grounded in the idea that competition is not liable to be impaired in the absence of a degree of market power. The Commission Guidelines on agreements of minor importance, for instance, explain that arrangements entered into between parties whose market shares do not exceed certain thresholds will be considered not to appreciably restrict competition in the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. 54 Similar pronouncements may be located in the Commission Guidelines on horizontal cooperation agreements or in the Commission Guidelines on horizontal and nonhorizontal mergers. 55 While these 'safe harbours' are often presented as 'presumptions of lawfulness', strictly speaking they are simply illustrations of the authority's policy and understanding of the law. 56\nLast but not least, premises have a third important function in competition enforcement-they form part of the backdrop against which the standard of proof inquiry is conducted. The reason for this is that the process of determining whether the available evidence is sufficient to surpass the requisite level of conviction or probability for a decision to be lawfully adopted is informed-among others-by normality considerations, which allow us to make sense of the evidence and to 'connect the dots'. Generally, our perception of 'usual' and 'unusual' is shaped by past experience and common sense. 57 In competition enforcement though, economic premises may also determine what is 'normal' and what is not. 58 For instance, because cartels are deemed to harm competition, claims and evidence of plausible explanations and efficiencies will be evaluated against this default idea. Likewise, the insight that 'the effects of a conglomerate-type merger are generally considered to be neutral, or even beneficial, for competition' led the General Court to emphasize in Tetra\nLaval that 'the proof of anticompetitive conglomerate effects of such a merger calls for a precise examination, supported by convincing evidence, of the circumstances which allegedly produce those effects'. 59 Therefore, premises inform not only the construction of the law and the design of policy but also fact-finding, insofar as they provide 'rules of thumb' and baselines for drawing inferences from the evidence. 60\nB. The Construction and Deconstruction of Normative and Economic Premises\nPremises are not set in stone though. Because they embody contemporary norms and values as well as current knowledge, they may-and do-evolve over time. Societal and political shifts and advances in economics may lead to the emergence of new premises or the critical revisiting of old ones. The construction and deconstruction of normative and economic premises in competition enforcement occur in an incremental and cumulative manner predominantly outside but also within the legal system.\nOutside the legal system, scholarly works exposing the thinking underlying competition enforcement and challenging its theoretical and empirical foundations, as well as its consistency, play a pivotal role in this regard. This is hardly surprising-by promoting evidence-based dialogue and allowing for the fermentation of ideas, academic debates may result in the elimination of weak propositions, the emergence of consensus positions, and the creation of new knowledge. This process though is a constant work in progress, which partly explains why many of the disputes concerning competition enforcement resurface now and again. The recently reignited conversation about the goals of the discipline is a good example of this-after the espousal by many of efficiency and consumer welfare as the main aims of competition law, the issue has again been brought into the spotlight by commentators advocating for the pursuit of broader social and political objectives. 61 Economic premises are not immune to challenges either. As the currently ongoing discussion around the low levels of vertical merger enforcement illustrates, even well-established propositions-such as the idea that nonhorizontal concentrations generally benefit competition and generate efficiencies-may be questioned and potentially overturned. 62 Finally, academic works exposing inconsistencies in the legal treatment of various categories of conduct may also cast doubt on the convincingness of the premises underlying the applicable tests. 63\nWithin the legal system, the construction and deconstruction of premises naturally occur during the development of policy and in the context of specific cases. Indeed, on several occasions the emergence of new knowledge or changes in the prevailing circumstances have prompted competition authorities to reflect on-and update, where necessary-the premises driving their enforcement activities. In the EU, for instance, the heavy criticisms against the Commission's early formalistic approach to the legal treatment of various practices led the authority to rethink its policy in different areas-from vertical agreements to horizontal arrangements to mergers and unilateral conduct. The replacement of old premises with new ones culminated in the publication of several soft law documents, which were seen as signalling a 'more economic' approach to EU competition enforcement. 64 More recently, the challenges of the digital economy have impelled several authorities to commission expert reports and to launch task forces or strategies with a view to ascertaining what normative and economic premises should drive antitrust and merger policy in that context. 65\nBy contrast, courts are naturally more cautious against regular or radical changes in the law as a result of contemporary developments due to the need to preserve legal certainty and stability. 66 Nevertheless, the normative and economic propositions underpinning competition enforcement may be exposed or challenged in the context of judicial proceedings, too. Leegin is probably among the best examples of a drastic overhaul of the law in judicial acknowledgment of an evolution in current thinking. Noting that 'economics literature is replete with procompetitive justifications for a manufacturer's use of resale price maintenance', the US Supreme Court overturned Dr Miles and dismissed the per se illegality test in favour of a rule of reason analysis. 67 In the EU, the Courts have frequently spelt out the premises behind their interpretation of the law. While many have survived the passage of time relatively unscathed, for example, the idea that pricing below average variable costs is generally irrational for an undertaking or the insight that certain restraints are necessary in selective distribution or franchising, 68 others have been tested-for instance, the idea that exclusivity rebates offered by a dominant firm are inherently harmful for competition and consumers. 69 Over the years, such challenges have provided EU judges with the opportunity to incrementally clarify and elaborate on the main ideas driving the enforcement of the antitrust and merger rules. 70\nC. Economic Premises and Evidence Rules\nMost, if not all, premises, in particular economic ones, have at least some empirical grounding, and their 'truth' or 'validity' may thus be contested, as just noted. To the extent that they underpin the construction of the competition provisions and their application to specific practices and may be challenged in the context of judicial proceedings, it is necessary to briefly consider whether they are subject to the evidence rules. Are economic propositions to be established to the standard of proof before being endorsed by the court? If there is disagreement between the parties about the 'correct' premise, say, for instance, regarding the competitive effects of exclusive dealing by dominant firms or the relationship between market structure and innovation, is this to be resolved in accordance with the rules on the burden of proof? And are judges exclusively dependent on parties to produce the relevant information, or can they engage in independent research?\nThese queries go to the heart of a rather old, yet highly important problem-that of the integration of social science in law. 71 To the extent that the construction and the application of the legal rules hinge on 'knowledge' derived from social science, including economics, is this to be treated as 'fact' or as 'law' or perhaps as something else? Scholars have approached this question in different, albeit not fundamentally conflicting, ways. On the one hand, it has been suggested that so-called legislative facts-that is, facts that 'inform ( ... ) a court's legislative judgment on questions of law and policy'- must be distinguished from adjudicative facts, that is, facts about 'what the parties did, what the circumstances were, what the background conditions were', and that the evidence rules apply only to the latter. 72 On the other hand, it has been argued that social science may be treated both as 'law' and as a 'fact depending on its use: it is akin to 'law' when it provides the basis for law-making or is employed to establish background knowledge and general methodology, while it is akin to 'fact', when it is applied to case-specific issues or to produce case-specific research findings. 73\nWith these remarks in mind, when economic premises are employed for the purpose of determining the optimal legal test-that is, whether a conduct should be subject to a rule or a standard (in EU terminology, the 'by object' or the 'by effect' test)-they arguably escape the application of the evidence rules. In the EU this conclusion is further reinforced by the exclusive competence of the EU Courts to provide authoritative guidance on the meaning of EU law. 74 Accordingly, conduct-specific economic premises, that is, generalized propositions pertaining to the economics of different practices-say, tying or price discrimination or refusal to supply-need not be established to the standard of proof to be accepted by EU judges as the motivation behind their choice of legal test. By contrast, where economic premises are employed as 'background knowledge' or even 'rules of thumb' for the purpose of making sense of the evidence, the answer is not as straightforward. As noted earlier, in [TABLE 1 OMITTED] this context economic premises may enable judges to draw inferences from the available pieces of information. Inevitably though, the strength of the inference is partly correlated with the strength or relevance of the economic premise. If either is prima facie challenged, then in principle the party with the burden of persuasion should explain why the inference should still be drawn.\nV. PRESUMPTIONS AS ANALYTICAL SHORTCUTS IN EU COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT\nA. A Brief Account of the Existing Presumptions\nSomewhat ironically, considering the popularity of the term in competition scholarship, there are not many presumptions in the technical sense in EU competition law. Indeed, the examination of the EU Courts' jurisprudence reveals the existence of only five (Table 1). 75 These effectively correspond to different elements of the antitrust rules that the Commission must prove to adopt a prohibition decision.\nThe first presumption pertains to the notion of 'undertaking' against which Articles 101 and 102 TFEU are addressed. 76 As explained in H?fner and Elser, the concept comprises 'any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of that entity and the way in which it is financed'. 77 Further elaborating on this in Hydrotherm, the Court stressed that the term 'undertaking' must be understood as designating an economic-rather than a legal-unit. 78 In this regard, the existence of distinct legal entities is immaterial; what matters is-as elucidated in Shell-that there is a 'unitary organisation of personal, tangible and intangible elements which pursues a specific economic aim on a long-term basis and can contribute to the commission of an infringement'. 79 In the case of parent companies and subsidiaries in particular, such an economic unit will exist where 'the subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company'; according to settled jurisprudence, in these circumstances the anticompetitive conduct of the subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company. 80 In Akzo the Court of Justice confirmed that 'where a parent company has a 100% shareholding in a subsidiary ( ... ) there is a rebuttable presumption that the parent company does in fact exercise decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary'. 81 Ever since its first affirmation, the Akzo presumption has been reiterated multiple times and is now solidly rooted in the Courts' jurisprudence.\nIn any event, to find a violation of Article 101(1) TFEU in particular, the Commission must also demonstrate that the undertaking participated in a collusive arrangement-be it a concerted practice or an agreement. 82 Showing the existence of a concerted practice in principle entails proving three elements: concertation, subsequent market conduct, and causal connection between the two. In H?ls and in Commission v Anic Partecipazioni, however, the Court clarified that 'subject to proof to the contrary, which it is for the economic operators concerned to adduce, there must be a presumption that the undertakings participating in concerting arrangements and remaining active on the market take account of the information exchanged with their competitors when determining their conduct on that market'. 83 Ever since, the Anic presumption-as is often called-has become firmly embedded in the Courts' case law. 84 While it was initially developed in connection with concerted practices-that is, collusive arrangements falling short of an agreement-this presumption soon provided the basis for the emergence of another one, that of participation in a cartel upon evidence that the undertaking has attended a meeting with an anticompetitive object. Indeed, as confirmed for the first time in Aalborg Portland, 'it is sufficient for the Commission to show that the undertaking concerned participated in meetings at which anticompetitive agreements were concluded, without manifestly opposing them, to prove to the requisite standard that the undertaking participated in a cartel', the presumption being that its will concurs with that of the other attendants. 85\nAt any rate, to adopt a prohibition decision, the Commission must also establish the duration of the antitrust violation and of the undertaking's involvement in it. This can be a daunting task-especially in complex infringements extending over longer periods of time. In recognition of this challenge, the EU Courts have eased the authority's burden of proof in two ways. Firstly, they have developed the doctrine of single, continuous or repeated infringement, according to which there is one infringement-rather than several-where a series of acts form part of an unlawful 'overall plan'. 86 The latter may be deduced 'from the identical nature of the objectives of the practices at issue, of the goods concerned, of the undertakings which participated in the collusion, of the main rules for its implementation, of the natural persons involved on behalf of the undertakings, and lastly, of the geographical scope of those practices'. 87 Secondly-and most importantly, for the purposes of this work, the EU Courts have adopted a presumption of continuity, whose foundations originate in Dunlop. According to the latter, 'if there is no evidence directly establishing the duration of an infringement, the Commission should adduce at least evidence of facts sufficiently proximate in time for it to be reasonable to accept that that infringement continued uninterruptedly between two specific dates'. 88\nFinally, the case law arguably points at the existence of one more presumption-that is, if a conduct lacks any plausible explanation, it is intrinsically capable of harming competition. 89 Premises about the economics of the practice at hand and any 'objective justifications' raised by the parties will be crucial to ascertaining whether, on the facts, there is no legitimate ground for it. 90 In this case, the anticompetitive potential of the practice is automatically inferred and needs not be proved ad hoc, unless the undertaking concerned produces evidence to the contrary, and a 'by object' violation will be considered established, provided that the other elements of Article 101 TFEU or Article 102 TFEU have been sufficiently demonstrated. In the context of Article 101 TFEU, the Court of Justice explained in T-Mobile that 'the distinction between \"infringements by object\" and \"infringements by effect\" arises from the fact that certain forms of collusion between undertakings can be regarded, by their very nature, as being injurious to the proper functioning of normal competition'. 91 As the Court elaborated, 'in order for a concerted practice to be regarded as having an anticompetitive object, it is sufficient that it has the potential to have a negative impact on competition'; in this case, there is no need for the Commission to consider its effects. 92 Nevertheless, Football Association Premier League clarifies that undertakings may 'put forward any circumstance within the economic and legal context' of the arrangement in question, which would justify the finding that it is 'not liable to impair competition'. 93 A similar presumption is visible in the context of Article 102 TFEU, as well. Indeed, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Intel implies that practices, which lack a plausible explanation, are presumed to be capable of harming competition, unless the dominant undertaking challenges this conclusion 'on the basis of supporting evidence'. 94", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Normative\npremises provide policymakers and adjudicators with valuable analytical shortcuts\ninsofar as they relieve them of the need to establish the merits of the entailed generalizations every single time\nnormative assertions\nare what gives shape to the otherwise vague letter of the antitrust\nprovisions. Arguably, those provisions do not immediately reveal what is prohibited and are in need of elaboration to become operational\nThe prohibition, for instance, of cartels as 'by object' violations of antitrust law rests on the economic premise that conduct of this kind lacks any\njustification and thus a rule of prima facie illegality is not liable to chill procompetitive behaviour\nthe 'by effect' analysis of exclusive dealing\nis explained by the economic insight that behaviour of this kind may entail efficiencies\nthe 'by object' test has been occasionally portrayed as a presumption of\nlikely anticompetitive effects\nthe language employed by the EU Courts is partly to blame for this\nThis\ninsofar as it may create the misimpression that a finding of 'by object' violation rests on a presumption\nof the existence of\nanticompetitive effects\nNevertheless\nto speak of a presumption of\neffects is incorrect\neconomic premises are employed for the purpose of determining the optimal legal test-that is, whether a conduct should be subject to a rule or a standard\nthe 'by object' or the 'by effect' test\nconduct\nintrinsically capable of harming competition\nIn this case, the anticompetitive potential of the practice\nneeds not be proved ad hoc\nand a 'by object' violation will be considered established\n'the distinction between \"infringements by object\" and \"infringements by effect\" arises from the fact that certain forms of collusion\ncan be regarded, by their very nature, as being injurious to\nproper\ncompetition'\nAs the Court elaborated, 'in order for a\npractice to be regarded as\nan anticompetitive object, it is sufficient that it has the potential to have a negative impact\nthere is no need\nto consider\neffects", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: *The plan bans ‘doing x in a way that causes effect y’---that means the object of the prohibition is effect y, NOT practice x.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Normative\npremises provide policymakers and adjudicators with valuable analytical shortcuts\ninsofar as they relieve them of the need to establish the merits of the entailed generalizations every single time\nnormative assertions\nare what gives shape to the otherwise vague letter of the antitrust\nprovisions. Arguably, those provisions do not immediately reveal what is prohibited and are in need of elaboration to become operational\nThe prohibition, for instance, of cartels as 'by object' violations of antitrust law rests on the economic premise that conduct of this kind lacks any\njustification and thus a rule of prima facie illegality is not liable to chill procompetitive behaviour\nthe 'by effect' analysis of exclusive dealing\nis explained by the economic insight that behaviour of this kind may entail efficiencies\nthe 'by object' test has been occasionally portrayed as a presumption of\nlikely anticompetitive effects\nthe language employed by the EU Courts is partly to blame for this\nThis\ninsofar as it may create the misimpression that a finding of 'by object' violation rests on a presumption\nof the existence of\nanticompetitive effects\nNevertheless\nto speak of a presumption of\neffects is incorrect\neconomic premises are employed for the purpose of determining the optimal legal test-that is, whether a conduct should be subject to a rule or a standard\nthe 'by object' or the 'by effect' test\nconduct\nintrinsically capable of harming competition\nIn this case, the anticompetitive potential of the practice\nneeds not be proved ad hoc\nand a 'by object' violation will be considered established\n'the distinction between \"infringements by object\" and \"infringements by effect\" arises from the fact that certain forms of collusion\ncan be regarded, by their very nature, as being injurious to\nproper\ncompetition'\nAs the Court elaborated, 'in order for a\npractice to be regarded as\nan anticompetitive object, it is sufficient that it has the potential to have a negative impact\nthere is no need\nto consider\neffects", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Normative\nshortcuts\ngeneralizations every single time\ngive\nshape\nvague letter\nnot immediately reveal what is prohibited\nelaboration\noperational\ncartels\n'by object'\nany\njustification\nrule\nprima facie illegality\nprocompetitive\n'by effect'\nmay\nefficiencies\n'by object'\nportrayed\npresumption\neffects\nmisimpression\n'by object'\npresumption\neffects\npresumption\neffects\nincorrect\ndetermin\nconduct\nrule\nstandard\n'by object'\n'by effect'\nintrinsically\npotential\npractice\nneeds not be proved ad hoc\n'by object' violation\nobject\neffect\nforms of collusion\nvery nature\npractice\nanticompetitive object\npotential\nno need\neffects", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: *The plan bans ‘doing x in a way that causes effect y’---that means the object of the prohibition is effect y, NOT practice x.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Normative\npremises provide policymakers and adjudicators with valuable analytical shortcuts\ninsofar as they relieve them of the need to establish the merits of the entailed generalizations every single time\nnormative assertions\nare what gives shape to the otherwise vague letter of the antitrust\nprovisions. Arguably, those provisions do not immediately reveal what is prohibited and are in need of elaboration to become operational\nThe prohibition, for instance, of cartels as 'by object' violations of antitrust law rests on the economic premise that conduct of this kind lacks any\njustification and thus a rule of prima facie illegality is not liable to chill procompetitive behaviour\nthe 'by effect' analysis of exclusive dealing\nis explained by the economic insight that behaviour of this kind may entail efficiencies\nthe 'by object' test has been occasionally portrayed as a presumption of\nlikely anticompetitive effects\nthe language employed by the EU Courts is partly to blame for this\nThis\ninsofar as it may create the misimpression that a finding of 'by object' violation rests on a presumption\nof the existence of\nanticompetitive effects\nNevertheless\nto speak of a presumption of\neffects is incorrect\neconomic premises are employed for the purpose of determining the optimal legal test-that is, whether a conduct should be subject to a rule or a standard\nthe 'by object' or the 'by effect' test\nconduct\nintrinsically capable of harming competition\nIn this case, the anticompetitive potential of the practice\nneeds not be proved ad hoc\nand a 'by object' violation will be considered established\n'the distinction between \"infringements by object\" and \"infringements by effect\" arises from the fact that certain forms of collusion\ncan be regarded, by their very nature, as being injurious to\nproper\ncompetition'\nAs the Court elaborated, 'in order for a\npractice to be regarded as\nan anticompetitive object, it is sufficient that it has the potential to have a negative impact\nthere is no need\nto consider\neffects", "role": "user" }, { "content": "vague\nprovisions do not\nreveal what is prohibited\nprohibition\nof cartels as 'by object' violations\nrests on the\npremise that conduct of this kind lacks any\njustification\n'by effect' analysis\nis explained by\ninsight that behaviour\nmay entail efficiencies\nthe language\nmay create the misimpression that\nfinding\n'by object' violation rests on\npresumption\nof\neffects\nNevertheless\nis incorrect\neconomic premises\ndetermin\nthe optimal\ntest\nthat is, whether\nconduct should be subject to a rule or a standard\n'by object' or\n'by effect'\nconduct\nintrinsically capable of harming competition\nthis\npotential of the practice\nneeds not be proved ad hoc\nand a 'by object' violation will be\nestablished\n'the distinction between \"infringements by object\" and\nby effect\" arises from the fact that certain\ncollusion\ncan be regarded, by their\nnature, as being injurious\nthere is no need\nto consider\neffects", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Renewables EROI is too low---they can’t propel growth as fast as fossil fuels.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "One could argue that green growth would only run on renewable energies and so that the EROI of fossil fuels is irrelevant. Even though we will shortly argue that it is not, let us assume for a moment that a complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is possible materially (finding enough minerals and land to build the energy infrastructure) and socioeconomically (having renewable energies finding social acceptance and investment resources to completely replace fossil ones). Even then, according to Murphy and Hall (2011), the EROI of renewable energies (below 20:1) is still significantly lower compared to the high EROIs during the early days of fossil fuels (Hall et al., 2014). Capellán-Pérez et al. (2018) simulate what would happen to average EROI by 2050 should renewable energy sources increase from 15% to 30% (1st scenario) and from 15% to 50% (2nd scenario). In the first scenario, average EROI drops from currently 6:1 to 5:1; and down to 3:1 in the second scenario. If energy expenditures play an important role in the dynamics of economic growth, this means that renewable energies are fundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "One could argue that green growth would only run on renewable energies\nlet us assume for a moment that a complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is possible materially (finding enough minerals and land to build the energy infrastructure) and socioeconomically\nEven then\nthe EROI of renewable energies\nis still significantly lower compared to the high EROIs during the early days of fossil fuels\nCapellán-Pérez et al.\nsimulate what would happen to average EROI by 2050 should renewable energy sources increase from 15% to 30% (1st scenario) and from 15% to 50% (2nd scenario). In the first scenario, average EROI drops from currently 6:1 to 5:1; and down to 3:1 in the second scenario. If energy expenditures play an important role in the dynamics of economic growth, this means that renewable energies are fundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Renewables EROI is too low---they can’t propel growth as fast as fossil fuels.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "One could argue that green growth would only run on renewable energies\nlet us assume for a moment that a complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is possible materially (finding enough minerals and land to build the energy infrastructure) and socioeconomically\nEven then\nthe EROI of renewable energies\nis still significantly lower compared to the high EROIs during the early days of fossil fuels\nCapellán-Pérez et al.\nsimulate what would happen to average EROI by 2050 should renewable energy sources increase from 15% to 30% (1st scenario) and from 15% to 50% (2nd scenario). In the first scenario, average EROI drops from currently 6:1 to 5:1; and down to 3:1 in the second scenario. If energy expenditures play an important role in the dynamics of economic growth, this means that renewable energies are fundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels", "role": "user" }, { "content": "only\nrenewable\ns\nEven then\nthe EROI of renewable energies\nis still significantly lower compared to the high EROIs during the early days of fossil fuels\nrenewable\ns\ndrops\n3:1\nrenewable\ns\nfundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Renewables EROI is too low---they can’t propel growth as fast as fossil fuels.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3", "role": "system" }, { "content": "One could argue that green growth would only run on renewable energies\nlet us assume for a moment that a complete replacement of fossil fuels by renewables is possible materially (finding enough minerals and land to build the energy infrastructure) and socioeconomically\nEven then\nthe EROI of renewable energies\nis still significantly lower compared to the high EROIs during the early days of fossil fuels\nCapellán-Pérez et al.\nsimulate what would happen to average EROI by 2050 should renewable energy sources increase from 15% to 30% (1st scenario) and from 15% to 50% (2nd scenario). In the first scenario, average EROI drops from currently 6:1 to 5:1; and down to 3:1 in the second scenario. If energy expenditures play an important role in the dynamics of economic growth, this means that renewable energies are fundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels", "role": "user" }, { "content": "growth\nonly\non renewable\ns\nEROI\nis\nsignificantly lower compared to\nearly\nfossil fuels\naverage EROI by 2050 should renewable\ns increase\nto 30%\nand\n50%\ndrops\nto 3:1\nIf energy\nplay an important role in\ngrowth\nrenewable\ns are fundamentally unable to propel an economy as fast as fossil fuels", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Everything that can be tertiarized has been. It can’t sustain continued growth.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Not much tertiarisation left to do\nTertiarisation only provides a partial decoupling, and, importantly, one that has already occurred in most OECD countries. In these economies, the share of services in GDP is often already high, which is problematic because these are precisely those countries which have the highest ecological footprint per capita and thus should reduce their impact the most. Countries that have already reached a high degree of tertiarisation (more than 70% of value-added is generated in the service sector) retain a small industrial part that is increasingly difficult to compress.\nThat is because certain sectors simply cannot be dematerialised. This is the case for agriculture, transport, and housing construction, which, are often in the top sectors in terms of emissions and used materials. Cement is a good example. Representing 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, its production implies both high levels of process emissions and energy consumption, as well as an important amount of increasingly scarce marine sand (Rubenstein, 2012; The Pembina Institute, 2014). Although constructions can substitute other materials to cement, it is difficult to imagine how services could possibly offer adequate substitutes to most industrial production with regards to elementary needs such as food, shelter, or mobility (the service of having a pizza home delivered requires roads, a vehicle, and, not least, a pizza made from material ingredients). Hence, dematerialisation only concerns a limited fraction of the global economy, leaving most of the environmental pressures unsolved.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Tertiarisation only provides a partial decoupling\nThat is because certain sectors simply cannot be dematerialised. This is the case for agriculture, transport, and housing construction, which, are often in the top sectors in terms of emissions and used materials\nCement is a good example\nits production implies both high levels of process emissions and energy consumption, as well as an important amount of increasingly scarce marine sand\nAlthough constructions can substitute other materials to cement, it is difficult to imagine how services could possibly offer adequate substitutes to most industrial production with regards to elementary needs such as food, shelter, or mobility\ndematerialisation only concerns a limited fraction of the global economy, leaving most of the environmental pressures unsolved", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Everything that can be tertiarized has been. It can’t sustain continued growth.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Tertiarisation only provides a partial decoupling\nThat is because certain sectors simply cannot be dematerialised. This is the case for agriculture, transport, and housing construction, which, are often in the top sectors in terms of emissions and used materials\nCement is a good example\nits production implies both high levels of process emissions and energy consumption, as well as an important amount of increasingly scarce marine sand\nAlthough constructions can substitute other materials to cement, it is difficult to imagine how services could possibly offer adequate substitutes to most industrial production with regards to elementary needs such as food, shelter, or mobility\ndematerialisation only concerns a limited fraction of the global economy, leaving most of the environmental pressures unsolved", "role": "user" }, { "content": "partial\ncannot be dematerialised\nag\ntransport\nhousing\nCement\nother materials\ndifficult to imagine how services could\nsubstitute\nelementary\nfood\nshelter\nmobility\nleaving most of the environmental pressures unsolved", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Everything that can be tertiarized has been. It can’t sustain continued growth.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "Tertiarisation only provides a partial decoupling\nThat is because certain sectors simply cannot be dematerialised. This is the case for agriculture, transport, and housing construction, which, are often in the top sectors in terms of emissions and used materials\nCement is a good example\nits production implies both high levels of process emissions and energy consumption, as well as an important amount of increasingly scarce marine sand\nAlthough constructions can substitute other materials to cement, it is difficult to imagine how services could possibly offer adequate substitutes to most industrial production with regards to elementary needs such as food, shelter, or mobility\ndematerialisation only concerns a limited fraction of the global economy, leaving most of the environmental pressures unsolved", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Tertiarisation only provides\npartial decoupling\ncertain sectors\ncannot be dematerialised\nag\ntransport, and housing\nCement is a\nexample\nAlthough constructions can substitute other materials\nit is difficult to imagine how services could\nsubstitute\nfood, shelter, or mobility\nleaving most\npressures unsolved", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Dematerialization from services is fake.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "As it turns out, the much-celebrated shift to services has delivered no improvements at all when it comes to the resource intensity of rich nations. Services represent 74% of GDP in high-income nations, having grown rapidly since deindustrialisation began in the 1990s, and yet the material use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth. Indeed, while highincome nations have the highest share of services in terms of contribution to GDP, they also have the highest per capita material footprints. By far. The same is true on a global scale. Services have grown from 63% of GDP in 1997 to 69% in 2015, according to World Bank data. Yet during this same period global material use has accelerated. In other words, we have seen a rematerialisation of the global economy even as we have shifted to services.\nWhat explains this strange result? It’s partly that the incomes people make in the service economy end up getting used to buy material goods. People might earn their money on YouTube, but they spend it buying things like furniture and cars. But it’s also because services themselves turn out to be resource-intensive in their own right. Take the tourism sector, for example. Tourism is classed as a service, and yet it requires an enormous material infrastructure to keep it going – airports, planes, buses, cruise ships, resorts, hotels, swimming pools and theme parks (all of which are services themselves).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the\ncelebrated shift to services has delivered no improvements at all when it comes to\nresource intensity\nServices represent 74% of GDP in high-income nations, having grown rapidly since deindustrialisation\nand yet the material use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth\nwhile highincome nations have the highest share of services in terms of contribution to GDP, they also have the highest per capita material footprints. By far\nServices have grown from 63% of GDP in 1997 to 69% in 2015, according to World Bank data. Yet during this same period global material use has accelerated\nwe have seen a rematerialisation of the global economy even as we have shifted to services.\nWhat explains this\n? It’s partly that the incomes people make in the service economy end up getting used to buy material goods\nPeople might earn their money on YouTube, but they spend it buying things like furniture and cars. But it’s also because services themselves turn out to be resource-intensive\nTake\ntourism\nTourism is classed as a service, and yet it requires an enormous material infrastructure\nairports, planes, buses, cruise ships, resorts, hotels, swimming pools and theme parks (all of which are services themselves).", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Dematerialization from services is fake.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\ncelebrated shift to services has delivered no improvements at all when it comes to\nresource intensity\nServices represent 74% of GDP in high-income nations, having grown rapidly since deindustrialisation\nand yet the material use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth\nwhile highincome nations have the highest share of services in terms of contribution to GDP, they also have the highest per capita material footprints. By far\nServices have grown from 63% of GDP in 1997 to 69% in 2015, according to World Bank data. Yet during this same period global material use has accelerated\nwe have seen a rematerialisation of the global economy even as we have shifted to services.\nWhat explains this\n? It’s partly that the incomes people make in the service economy end up getting used to buy material goods\nPeople might earn their money on YouTube, but they spend it buying things like furniture and cars. But it’s also because services themselves turn out to be resource-intensive\nTake\ntourism\nTourism is classed as a service, and yet it requires an enormous material infrastructure\nairports, planes, buses, cruise ships, resorts, hotels, swimming pools and theme parks (all of which are services themselves).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "no improvements at all\nresource intensity\nmaterial use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth\nshare\nhighest per capita material footprints. By far\nduring this same period global material use has accelerated\nrematerialisation\neven as we have shifted to services\nWhat explains this\n?\nincomes\nused to buy material goods\nthings\nservices themselves turn out to be resource-intensive\ntourism\nTourism\nenormous material infrastructure", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Dematerialization from services is fake.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4", "role": "system" }, { "content": "the\ncelebrated shift to services has delivered no improvements at all when it comes to\nresource intensity\nServices represent 74% of GDP in high-income nations, having grown rapidly since deindustrialisation\nand yet the material use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth\nwhile highincome nations have the highest share of services in terms of contribution to GDP, they also have the highest per capita material footprints. By far\nServices have grown from 63% of GDP in 1997 to 69% in 2015, according to World Bank data. Yet during this same period global material use has accelerated\nwe have seen a rematerialisation of the global economy even as we have shifted to services.\nWhat explains this\n? It’s partly that the incomes people make in the service economy end up getting used to buy material goods\nPeople might earn their money on YouTube, but they spend it buying things like furniture and cars. But it’s also because services themselves turn out to be resource-intensive\nTake\ntourism\nTourism is classed as a service, and yet it requires an enormous material infrastructure\nairports, planes, buses, cruise ships, resorts, hotels, swimming pools and theme parks (all of which are services themselves).", "role": "user" }, { "content": "the\nshift to services has delivered no improvements at all\nthe material use of high-income nations is outpacing GDP growth\nhighincome nations have the highest share\nalso\nthe highest per capita material footprints. By far\nwe have seen\nrematerialisation\neven as we\nshifted to services\nWhat explains this\n?\npartly\nincomes\ngetting used to buy\nthings\nBut\nalso\nservices themselves turn out\nresource-intensive\nTourism\nrequires\nenormous material infrastructure", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It won’t happen without a mindset shift.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "The a-growth theory put forward by van den Bergh prescribes that an ambitious package of policy reforms should be implemented to ensure strict environmental protection: ending subsidies to fossil fuels, scaling up renewables, taxing polluting substances and activities, and putting in place a widespread cap-and-trade mechanism. This set of policy proposals is derived from the idea that social welfare should be primarily pursued, irrespective of whether it causes GDP growth or contraction. The proposed policy solutions would not alter, at least initially, the wider architecture of our socio-economic system (that is why the associated scenario, Policy Reform, is considered a Conventional world) and, even with a steep price on carbon, lifestyle changes, and without fossil fuel subsidies, we are likely to commit ourselves to some form of dangerous global warming in the future (van Vuuren et al., 2018). This is why technological solutions, in the form of geoengineering and development of clean energy, remain needed, along with some form of values and behavior change.\nBefore problems. The enormous political and economic clout of market actors with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo is the most problematic aspect of this proposal. The risk that powerful vested interests might prevent effective policy solutions to be implemented is compounded by the fact that the a-growth theory remains rooted in the current understanding of politics and economics, from which powerful market actors profit. Similarly to the theory underlying the narrative of sustainable development currently informing environmental politics, the a-growth theory put forward by van den Bergh subscribes to an economic understanding of the world in which the social reality and the ontology of economics (prices, preferences, individuals, firms, etc.) match. Current environmental politics is premised on an understanding of environmental problems as market failures. Caps, taxes, and incentives are all instruments devised to address this undesired event. Yet, none of these instruments have prevented market actors from successfully pushing their polluting agenda. Market actors have an array of techniques to achieve this goal: framing climate change and environmental problems as risks, and thus susceptible to be addressed with the usual risk management tools already available to them (Wright & Nyberg, 2015), sponsoring research which fuels climate change skepticism (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), and lobbying and campaign contributions (Christiano, 2012). Powerful vested interests have so far prevented more modest policy solutions to be implemented than those proposed by van den Bergh. It is difficult to see how this might change without first a deep refashioning of our values and behavior, which seems to be excluded both by van den Bergh and by the Policy Reform scenario.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "a-growth theory\nprescribes\nan ambitious package of policy reforms should be implemented to ensure strict environmental protection: ending subsidies to fossil fuels, scaling up renewables, taxing polluting substances and activities, and putting in place a widespread cap-and-trade mechanism. This set of policy proposals is derived from the idea that social welfare should be primarily pursued, irrespective of\nGDP growth\nThe proposed policy solutions would not alter\nthe wider architecture of our socio-economic system\nand, even with a steep price on carbon, lifestyle changes, and without fossil fuel subsidies, we are likely to commit ourselves to some form of dangerous global warming in the future\nThe enormous political and economic clout of market actors with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo is the most problematic aspect of this proposal\npowerful vested interests might prevent effective policy\nto be implemented\ncompounded by the fact that the a-growth theory remains rooted in the current understanding of politics and economics\nfrom which powerful market actors profit. Similarly to the theory underlying the narrative of sustainable development\na-growth theory\nsubscribes to an economic understanding of the world in which the social reality and the ontology of economics\nmatch\nCurrent environmental politics is premised on an understanding of environmental problems as market failures\nCaps, taxes, and incentives are all instruments devised to address this undesired event. Yet, none of these instruments have prevented market actors from successfully pushing their polluting agenda\nMarket actors have an array of techniques to achieve this goal: framing climate change and environmental problems as risks\nand thus susceptible to be addressed with the usual risk management tools\nsponsoring research which fuels climate change skepticism\nand lobbying and campaign contributions\nPowerful vested interests have so far prevented more modest policy solutions to be implemented than those proposed\nIt is difficult to see how this might change without first a deep refashioning of our values and behavior\nexcluded\nby\nthe Policy Reform scenario", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: It won’t happen without a mindset shift.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "a-growth theory\nprescribes\nan ambitious package of policy reforms should be implemented to ensure strict environmental protection: ending subsidies to fossil fuels, scaling up renewables, taxing polluting substances and activities, and putting in place a widespread cap-and-trade mechanism. This set of policy proposals is derived from the idea that social welfare should be primarily pursued, irrespective of\nGDP growth\nThe proposed policy solutions would not alter\nthe wider architecture of our socio-economic system\nand, even with a steep price on carbon, lifestyle changes, and without fossil fuel subsidies, we are likely to commit ourselves to some form of dangerous global warming in the future\nThe enormous political and economic clout of market actors with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo is the most problematic aspect of this proposal\npowerful vested interests might prevent effective policy\nto be implemented\ncompounded by the fact that the a-growth theory remains rooted in the current understanding of politics and economics\nfrom which powerful market actors profit. Similarly to the theory underlying the narrative of sustainable development\na-growth theory\nsubscribes to an economic understanding of the world in which the social reality and the ontology of economics\nmatch\nCurrent environmental politics is premised on an understanding of environmental problems as market failures\nCaps, taxes, and incentives are all instruments devised to address this undesired event. Yet, none of these instruments have prevented market actors from successfully pushing their polluting agenda\nMarket actors have an array of techniques to achieve this goal: framing climate change and environmental problems as risks\nand thus susceptible to be addressed with the usual risk management tools\nsponsoring research which fuels climate change skepticism\nand lobbying and campaign contributions\nPowerful vested interests have so far prevented more modest policy solutions to be implemented than those proposed\nIt is difficult to see how this might change without first a deep refashioning of our values and behavior\nexcluded\nby\nthe Policy Reform scenario", "role": "user" }, { "content": "policy reforms\nsocial welfare\nprimarily\nirrespective\nGDP growth\nnot alter\nwider architecture\neven with\nlikely to commit ourselves to some form of dangerous global warming in the future\nenormous political and economic clout of market actors\nvested interest in perpetuating the status quo\nmost problematic aspect of this proposal\nprevent effective policy\ncompounded\ncurrent understanding\npolitics\neconomics\nprofit\nsustainable development\neconomic\nsocial reality\nontology of economics\nmatch\nmarket failures\naddress\nnone of these instruments\nprevent\nactors from successfully pushing their polluting agenda\narray of techniques\nrisks\nmanagement tools\nskepticism\nlobbying\ncampaign\nprevented more modest policy solutions to be implemented than those proposed\nfirst\ndeep refashioning of our values and behavior\nexcluded", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: It won’t happen without a mindset shift.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.1", "role": "system" }, { "content": "a-growth theory\nprescribes\nan ambitious package of policy reforms should be implemented to ensure strict environmental protection: ending subsidies to fossil fuels, scaling up renewables, taxing polluting substances and activities, and putting in place a widespread cap-and-trade mechanism. This set of policy proposals is derived from the idea that social welfare should be primarily pursued, irrespective of\nGDP growth\nThe proposed policy solutions would not alter\nthe wider architecture of our socio-economic system\nand, even with a steep price on carbon, lifestyle changes, and without fossil fuel subsidies, we are likely to commit ourselves to some form of dangerous global warming in the future\nThe enormous political and economic clout of market actors with a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo is the most problematic aspect of this proposal\npowerful vested interests might prevent effective policy\nto be implemented\ncompounded by the fact that the a-growth theory remains rooted in the current understanding of politics and economics\nfrom which powerful market actors profit. Similarly to the theory underlying the narrative of sustainable development\na-growth theory\nsubscribes to an economic understanding of the world in which the social reality and the ontology of economics\nmatch\nCurrent environmental politics is premised on an understanding of environmental problems as market failures\nCaps, taxes, and incentives are all instruments devised to address this undesired event. Yet, none of these instruments have prevented market actors from successfully pushing their polluting agenda\nMarket actors have an array of techniques to achieve this goal: framing climate change and environmental problems as risks\nand thus susceptible to be addressed with the usual risk management tools\nsponsoring research which fuels climate change skepticism\nand lobbying and campaign contributions\nPowerful vested interests have so far prevented more modest policy solutions to be implemented than those proposed\nIt is difficult to see how this might change without first a deep refashioning of our values and behavior\nexcluded\nby\nthe Policy Reform scenario", "role": "user" }, { "content": "policy reforms\nwould not alter\nglobal warming\nThe\nclout of market actors\nprevent effective policy\nCaps, taxes, and incentives\nnone\nprevent\nactors\npolluting\nsponsoring\nskepticism\nand lobbying\nhave\nprevented\nmodest\nsolutions\nIt is difficult to\nchange without\nrefashioning\nour values", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: AND, empirical successes prove it’s possible---but it needs crisis to go mainstream.", "role": "system" }, { "content": "In time, this pressure is likely to shift from submitting requests to the state to making demands on it, and then to taking increasing control of it. There will be increasing insistence that frivolous industries must be phased out so that scarce resources can be devoted to meeting fundamental town and regional needs. Meanwhile towns will be driven by necessity to bypass the center and take initiatives such as setting up their own farms, energy supplies and factories, thus transferring various functions out of the control of the centre. There will be increasing recognition that the local is the only level where the right decisions for self-sufficient communities can be made. In time, these shifts will lead to the transfer of functions and power from state-level agencies to the local level, leaving the center with relatively few tasks, and mainly with the role of facilitating local activities. \nThis radical restructuring could conceivably be a smooth and peaceful process, driven by a general recognition that scarcity is making local self-governing communities the only viable option. If this happens then in effect, Stage 1 will be recognized as having constituted the revolution, essentially a cultural phenomenon, and the macroscopic structural changes in Stage 2 will be seen as a consequence of the revolution. \nThus a case for Anarchist theory and practice \nIt will be evident that the alternative social organization sketched above is a fairly common Anarchist vision (although there are also varieties that are not being advocated). The argument is that settlements enabling a high quality of life for all, despite very low resource use rates, must involve all members in thoroughly participatory deliberations regarding the design, development and running of their local productive, political and social systems. Their ethos must be non-hierarchical, cooperative and collectivist, seeking to avoid all forms of domination and to prioritize the public good. They must draw on the voluntary good will and energy of conscientious citizens who are ready to contribute generously and to identify and deal with problems informally and spontaneously, and to focus on seeking mutually beneficial arrangements with little if any need for industrial infrastructures and transport networks, bureaucracy, paid officials or politicians. Regional and wider issues will be tackled by the characteristic Anarchist mechanisms of federations and (powerless) delegates bringing recommendations back down to town meetings. The principle of 'subsidiarity' is evident in the practice of grass-roots politics, the avoidance of hierarchies, and the central role of town assemblies. The very low resource costs sustainability requires are achievable because of the proximity, diversity of functions and integration, the familiarity enabling informal communication and spontaneous action, and the elimination of many processes (e.g., transport, waste dumping, fertilizer production, packaging). \nIn the 1930s the Spanish Anarchists in the Barcelona region showed what could be done by ordinary workers and citizens. An impressive current example is the Catalan Integral Cooperative movement (Dafermos 2017; TSW 2015a). Thousands work in hundreds of different cooperatives providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food, goods and services, including unemployment and other welfare services. They operate more than twenty food 'pantries' largely via voluntary labor, handling more than a thousand products. Their goal is to build an alternative society focused on meeting needs, with no involvement of the state or market principles. Many eco-villages operate according to Anarchist principles, achieving high levels of sustainability (again see Lockyer 2017 and Grinde et al. 2018). \nIn addition it will be evident that the discussion of transition strategy also follows Anarchist principles, especially in the notion of 'prefiguring' the new here and now within the old, not depending on the centre let alone a vanguard party, and recognizing the importance of ideas and values. \nThe advent of GFC 2 \nUnfortunately the foregoing transition sequence is likely to be greatly disrupted and possibly thwarted a global financial crisis of much greater magnitude than the 2008 event. It is widely recognized that the much higher levels of debt are likely to bring on at least a serious recession, and probably worse in the next few years. The global economy is heavily dependent on petroleum supply, which is been kept up by 'fracking', but this has only been made possible by enormous debt; none of the major companies in the arena has ever made a profit. Several analysts have pointed out that the price levels necessary to make the new sources of petroleum profitable now seem to be above those necessary to enable economies to function normally. In addition, Ahmed (2017) has argued persuasively that the rapidly worsening population, food, water and ecological conditions affecting Middle Eastern petroleum suppliers are increasing their chances of becoming failed states. Meanwhile the proportion of their petroleum production they must use internally is increasing, adding to the possibility that their capacity to export will dry up within a decade. These and other deteriorating resource and ecological conditions (especially falling Energy Return on Energy Invested rates) are likely to trigger serious global economic disruption long before localist initiatives have been well enough established. \nYet it is very unlikely that the kind of transition envisaged could begin unless there is major breakdown in the existing consumer-capitalist system. As long as it keeps the supermarket shelves stocked, discontent is likely to be muted, and focused on demands for more jobs and higher incomes rather than system replacement. The Goldilocks outcome would seem to be an economic depression that falls short of catastrophic breakdown, but is serious enough to convince large numbers that the system is not going to provide for them. \nThe challenge to the Left \nThis analysis has especially important implications for those who are radically critical of consumercapitalist society. Firstly it is evident that the revolution required to solve the problem is far bigger than that which Marx envisaged. Merely getting rid of capitalism will not suffice. Secondly, the most promising frontier now for such critics is the challenge to current society being set by unsustainable resource and ecological impacts. Latouche said the limits to growth are giving critical theory its last chance (2012: 75). Yet the foregoing argument has been that this opportunity has hardly been recognized, let alone taken up. Bookchin saw this some time ago. \"The New Left, like the old left, has never grasped the revolutionary potential of the ecological issues, nor has it used ecology as a basis for understanding the problems of communist reconstruction and utopia\" (1973: 242). Significant and increasing numbers of ordinary people are seriously concerned about these issues and are thinking more or less in the general direction of replacing consumer-capitalism with localism and simpler ways. These themes are likely to be the most effective foundations for critical social theory and practice now. \nBut unfortunately the Left has a deeply entrenched reluctance to embrace these ideas. The traditional assumption has been that when power has been taken from the capitalist class, the contradictions preventing full application of the productive forces will be removed and technical advance will lift all to material wealth. Socialism is distinctly not conceived today in terms of frugality or localism. Indeed some socialists embrace 'ecomodernist' ideas, notably Phillips (2014) and Sharzer (2012), who explicitly spurn the suggestion that local or simpler ways are necessary or desirable. \nDavid Harvey represents the many Marxists who reject localism both as a goal and as a revolutionary strategy in favor of the typical socialist focus on action at the state level (Harvey 2017). For a critique, see Springer (2017). The Marxist position fails to address current circumstances, where the goal must be to contradict individualistic competitive affluence and must focus on citizen involvement in local economies. Major change at the central or state level cannot be achieved before a profound cultural revolution has been achieved, and this is most likely to occur via developments at the local level. \nDelusion and denial: the inability to respond \nThere are difficult and puzzling issues for social theorists that will not be taken up in this article. They are the psychological and institutional reasons for the failure to deal adequately with the limits to growth predicament, or with its major sub-problems such as the looming petroleum supply, debt, and climate change crises. The core phenomenon to be explained here would seem to be failure to even recognize the existence and/or seriousness of the problems, rather than lack of appropriate remedial action. \nThe essential causal factor is surely that if the limits to growth analysis is accepted then perhaps the most deeply entrenched post-Enlightenment assumption has to be jettisoned, i.e., the taken-for-granted conviction that progress and the good life are defined by capacity to produce and consume more and more material wealth. The suggestion that the supreme social goal should be materially simple lifestyles and systems, with no prospect of rising to greater affluence over time, would seem to be about as distasteful and unthinkable to workers and the lumpenproletariat as to the super-affluent 1%. \n6. Conclusions: a reorientation of social theory \nThe argument is that the advent of the limits to growth issue should be seen as requiring a major shift in the focal concerns of social theorists, especially those interested in critical perspectives on contemporary society and in sustainability and utopian themes. To begin with, a limits perspective involves a commitment to an inescapable logic that leads to quite specific conclusions regarding desirable social forms and how they might be achieved. If the limits are as severe as has been argued, then the goal must be transition from consumer-capitalist society to a general form that involves far lower resource use, and this has to mean mostly small-scale local economies that are self-governing, basically cooperative and committed to materially frugal lifestyles. If this is so, then the transition is essentially a cultural problem, and it is difficult to imagine how these ways could be established other than through a slow grass-roots process whereby ordinary people increasingly coerced by scarcity and economic deterioration take on the restructuring of their own suburbs, towns and regions (Alexander and Gleeson 2019). A major implication drawn above is that centralized agencies, especially the state, cannot drive these changes through.", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There will be\ninsistence that frivolous industries\nbe phased out so that scarce resources can be devoted to meeting fundamental\n regional needs.\ntowns will be driven by necessity to bypass the center and\nset\nup their own farms, energy supplies and factories,\n transferring\nfunctions out of the control of the centre.\nthe local is the only level where\nself-sufficient communities can be made. In time\nshifts will lead to\ntransfer of functions and power from state-level agencies to the local level\n.\nThis\ncould\nbe a smooth and peaceful process\ndriven by\ngeneral recognition that scarcity is making local self-governing communities the only\noption.\nThe very low resource costs sustainability requires are achievable because of the proximity\nof functions\n, the familiarity enabling informal communication and spontaneous action, and the elimination of many processes (e.g., transport, waste dumping, fertilizer production, packaging).\nAn impressive\nexample is the Catalan Integral Cooperative movement\n. Thousands work in hundreds of different cooperatives providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of food, goods and services, including unemployment and other welfare services.\neco-villages\nachiev\nhigh levels of sustainability\nlikely to be\na global financial crisis of much greater magnitude than the 2008\nmuch higher levels of debt are likely to bring on at least a serious recession\nin the next few years.\ndeteriorating resource and ecological conditions\nlikely\ntrigger serious global economic disruption\n.\nit is very unlikely\nthe\ntransition envisaged could begin unless there is major breakdown in the existing consumer-capitalist system. As long as it keeps the supermarket shelves stocked, discontent is\nmuted, and focused on demands for more jobs and higher incomes rather than system replacement. The Goldilocks outcome would\nbe a\ndepression\n short of catastrophic breakdown, but\nserious enough to convince large numbers that the system is not going to provide for them.\nSignificant and increasing numbers of ordinary people are seriously concerned\nand\nthinking\nin the\ndirection of replacing consumer-capitalism with localism and simpler ways. These\nare\nthe most effective foundations for\nsocial theory and practice now.\nprofound cultural revolution\nis most likely to occur\nat the local level.\nif the limits to growth analysis is accepted\nthe most deeply entrenched\nassumption has to be jettisoned,\nthe taken-for-granted conviction that progress\nare defined by capacity to produce and consume more\n material wealth.\nthe goal must be transition from\nto a\nform that involves far lower resource use, and this has to mean\n small-scale local economies that are self-governing,\n cooperative and committed to materially frugal lifestyles.\nthe transition is\na cultural problem, and it is difficult to imagine how these\ncould be established other than through a\n grass-roots process whereby ordinary people increasingly coerced by scarcity and economic deterioration take on the restructuring of their own suburbs, towns and regions\nthe state, cannot drive these changes through", "role": "assistant" } ]