Bob,
All the things you mention need to be done AND economic growth needs
to end, too. Of course it will be a gargantuan task to convince the
U.S. government to embrace a steady state economy, but it needs to be
said that ending growth is an absolute necessity. Conservation
leaders like James Speth are now in full agreement with this
position. Nothing in the material world grows forever, and the more
natural capital that is consumed by a growing human enterprise leaves
less and less for other species.
Start small. Start with yourself (I am sure that you are). Reduce
your ecological footprint. Have no more than 2 children. Convince
your neighbors to do the same. Lobby your local and state governments
to cap the number of housing units (some communities are doing this
now). Start a community with the intention of limiting its growth and
not selling out.
A new organization is starting up that will give members tools to
help them, their neighbors, and their communities to cap economic
growth. Stay tuned, more information will be forthcoming.
- Bob Fireovid
At 03:08 PM 11/24/2008, you wrote:
Hi Brian and list,
Thank you for these replies and the article. It's very interesting
and I agree with much of it. However, it doesn't present any data or
models that address any of the points I made earlier. The paper
concentrates largely on the failure of technology to mitigate the
environmental damage of growth. I think that's well established, as
evidenced by the numerous citations in the article (not to suggest
that the article wasn't a worthwhile effort though). I agree with
that, and I certainly realize that developed countries depend on third
world degradation. I simply think that there are much more immediate
and effective ways that ESA could influence matters than by taking a
stand on 'economic growth' and relying on macroeconomic forces to
change things. Not only is that a nonstarter, what would it do? How
would economic growth be limited? By manipulating interest rates so
people can't afford to buy a house? By lowering government R&D
expenditures? Lowering the minimum wage? Banning immigration? It all
seems pretty grandiose to me, what are the specific measures that
would be taken to limit economic growth? It is not enough just to say
we need to stop holding GDP in such high regard. I looked at Brian's
website, the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
and I couldn't find any recommendations of specific mechanisms for
limiting growth. Their position statement includes the following two
statements.
4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly
dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with
widespread affluence, and;
In principal I agree with this. But there are huge issues with
distribution of wealth, even in 'wealthy' countries, that this simple
statement ignores.
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a
dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be
employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve,
This statement means nothing to me. It certainly is not the definition
of a steady state. Apparently it suggests that as long as GDP stays
constant, everything else can change. If one sector declines, another
can go up. That sounds a lot like what I said before.
It seems to me that what's needed is much greater regulation and
economic incentives. Maybe ESA could, for example, take a stand on
subsidies to wasteful farming practices, or on environmental
requirements for trade agreements. Maybe we could argue that ecology
is actually more important to the nation, at this point, than new
weapons, space exploration and wider highways. The technology to
vastly change things, as Paul pointed out, is there to a large extent.
Obviously it needs to be done internationally. I'll leave my opinion
at that.
Anachronistically yours,
Bob
