Robert Maxwell wrote:
Why are we even talking about socialism? Socialism isn't happening in Western countries. There are varying levels of social democracy, though, which is not socialism.
That is, unless we're going by gturner's wacky definition of socialism, which apparently includes any country where the government could conceivably tell you "no, you can't do that."
There's the implication from the OP's study that modern industrial society trends towards greater environmental resource exploitation and instability. Essentially, humans can stave off disaster by accepting a lower/simpler level of existence, which means either some sweeping and painful restrictions in the capitalist paradigm (a huge list of things we're not allowed to do in business) or implementation of socialism (democratic control of the economy itself). Or some combination of both; probably certain industries would have to be nationalized and run as state entities and/or nonprofit companies serving the public interest.
At the same time, we'd also have to impose a new "no growth" economic paradigm, since the current one assumes steady population growth which is inevitable in unregulated reproduction. A population that doesn't grow tends to have labor shortages and other issues, so careful use of automation/technology plus strong population control policies would have to be devised to keep things stable.
Yeah, I don't think it would work either.