Once we started to urbanize, we put ourselves on this treadmill. We traded away stability for growth. And growth requires change.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Ultimately, stable growth will ensure that urban and rural incomes increase and people's lives improve.
People have been convinced that growth for growth's sake is a good thing.
All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward.
Back then, we could drive a mile from home and there was nothing. Now it's grown in every direction and is populated and modernized. I guess I have mixed feelings about it, but I'm not someone that thinks everything should stop growing.
You have to maintain the balance between fast growth and smooth growth. It's like driving a car and knowing when to balance the gas pedal and the brake.
Typically, market-driven growth spawns urbanisation and leads to migration. Urban centres expand into humongous entities that thrive on an unending supply of energy.
Growth is a stupid goal. So, by the way, is no-growth.
You always have to think in a new modern way, and you always have to push yourself in fashion because it's a big treadmill. You can't really get off it. You just have to move a little faster.
The growth that we want is one that brings real benefits to the people, raises quality and efficiency of development, and contributes to energy conservation and environmental protection.
We are a heterogeneous society. We have to accept that. Growth has to be such that the most backward sections also benefit from it. Otherwise, it will be a very imbalanced growth.
No opposing quotes found.