The partner of this striven-for “amortality” is a certain kind of amorality. There is always the question of progress toward what? By claiming its inevitability, advocates of a certain brand of progress seek to place their goals outside the realm of debate. But those goals contain an inherent set of values, just as the assumptions behind the programming of any “artificial intelligence” contains sets of values. The same could be said for “growth”. Who’s rising up against the growth of literacy, health, or beauty? It’s the unchecked growth of things we don’t value that is the problem. It’s not the amount of consumption that’s the problem it’s the nature of the consumed goods and the side-effects of producing and consuming those goods. (I, for one, would love to see a much greater emphasis on the production and consumption of high-quality cultural goods vs low-quality consumer goods.) I worry that the attempt to posit models like the homeostasis of natural systems as a replacement to the current dominant financial model also sidesteps the question of morality. At some point, we need to talk about what we value as a community and then adjust our systems of currency to appropriately reflect those values.
No Sidestepping Morality