Talk:Progress trap
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source links dead edit
Source links are dead can someone fix this or something?--NullPointerFault (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
please review edit
Cleanup (NPOV, Wfy) done. It's not recommended to remove the page while the list of celebrities lamenting environmental conditions grows. That would be an instance of the progress trap. Simplicissimo (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine by me. Much better than it was. I'm going to leave the cleanup banner for now if only because I cant remember or find better a tag like a "please contibute" type message (it is still a little bit of an essay). I'd help out and edit myself but just not at the moment. Perhaps I will return. Visitors here like at "A Short History of Progress" are very few and far between im afraid... Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
promotion page edit
Someone keeps updating this page with excessive references to an obscure blog progresstrap.org and progresstrap.blogspot.com. I believe this article may have been created to promote this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.170.99 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
References edit
A reference to the Stanford University (online) Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Progress entry incorrectly serves to ascribe the progress trap concept to Ronald Wright, who referred to it in 2004, more than 14 years after it was first used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplicissimo (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
concept precedes stated origin? edit
this concept is dated to 1989 or so but Ivan Illich discussed this some two decades prior and there may have been invocations of similar notions even earlier. PalimpsestCleaner (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Rebranding of Tragedy of the commons edit
I fail to see the novelty or contribution of this notion, it seem to me that this has already been detailed in well established concepts such as "tragedy of the commons", likewise stated "behavioral causes" seem dubious and convoluted (again, well established concept already exist, eg: in evolutionary biology and cognitive biases). I second the opinion from 6 years ago that this article bears all the trappings of self-promotion. 79.138.18.89 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)