I don’t think you got the point. “The new economic theory must deal with the question how to manage a smooth and gradual contraction and avoid thereby societal collapse in one country after the other.” It would be nice to avoid collapse, it would be very painful.
We can manage a contraction or we can have a catastrophic contraction call collapse. We need a less is more approach. Less production, less population, less consumption, less waste…….means we will have more peace, a better ecology, more species, more health, more free time, more freedom.
If we don’t reduce production, population, pollution, consumption, nature will do it for us but it will be a bitch and it will be too late for the more good things.
I am not hopeful for this needed transition as it will need to be lead by those who have to give up the most. If the rich and powerful elites do not lead by example then the people will not volunteer to cut back and will either have to be forced by repressive regimes or we will have to wait until the natural consequences take hold so the impending collapse becomes more obvious.
I don’t know who can get through to the rich and powerful elites, I have no contact with them. Taking the message to the general public is a waste of time that messaging will need to be done by the rich and powerful elites after they have reformed.
Sounds hopeless. In that case then your “Agreed. Build the new, transition from the old to the new, and let the old collapse” is right except the build new happens after the old collapse not before. It means rebuilding with ashes.
TEK
