Thanks for the context! I guess I can say that I can easily imagine a readily quantifiable economic system that is absolutely not about growth as some goal in itself, but about meaningful + responsible development in consideration of *all* it's participants, sentient or not. Call it 'green subsistence commons' or whatever, I'm sure some smarter people than I have already come up with something like that. ^^

I see. Hm, even when I imagine a world without any currency, a certain comparative (and therefore already quantitative) approach to valuation still seems inescapable Any individual likes something more than another thing, or needs something more than something else. Such quantification can maybe do without numbers, but that won't eliminate the different....size? extent? if not amount? of value ascribed to different things by different people.

Not sure I follow. Value and quantification don't need to connected at some fundamental reality. They are both already constructs to serve as viable models of reality, and in turn can be combined in viable ways. I mean, any kind of trade is based on quantifiable value. That quantified value is 'real' in so far as it is the basis of any purposeful transaction.

Of course it can, if we accept that said quantification is an assigned abstraction and not 'objective' value. And whether that valuation practical (and valuable) is of course dependant on the specific case. For instance, when people get frustrated with me because I can't seem to simply say whether I want or don't want to do something, I try to tell them that it's rare that I either want something 100% or not at all (0%), and often find myself at 30% or 70% or whatever. That sometimes helps me help them to understand that intent is not 0 or 1, at least not for me.

Planning on visiting Basel by any chance? ;)