I disagree with this perspective but probably a good % of the disagreement in this discussion is that Standard of Living in Duncans essay was defined in energy terms and not in the 'psychic satisfaction' terms we are commonly used to. I'd argue that in the end, having a higher or equal standard of living (satisfaction) with lower energy consumption will be the ultimate question/problem. We don't NEED all this energy/stuff to be happy, etc.

No, we don't need it. That's like saying growth can be defined by an improving "quality of life". Sadly, most people don't define it that way or understand it that way. You're into a definitional problem here, Nate. I suggest that any common way one might measure quality of life will correlate with energy usage.

State how "quality of life" is measured. And then tell me if it gets you more mates.

cfm in Gray, ME

As Dryki pointed out and I stated above, these things you are taking issue with are implicit in the model. How can they not be? The spareness of the model itself - and I found my self asking for more support and exposition as I read it - must be construed to include these considerations many of you are claiming aren't there. This is extremely flawed logic on your parts, imo.

Cheers