Yesterday, I was reading this interesting article from Christopher Ketcham in the Standard Globe :
The fallacy of endless economic growth
When I was reading it, I thought that the author could have been faster on his argument and that today everybody agree that "someone who thinks that an infinite growth in a limited planet is possible is either a fool either an economist."
But when I reach the comment section, I discovered that the number of fools and economists was still quite important.
How can you explain that based on the same economic and scientific data, people can reach such opposite conclusions ?