Of course there is always a good IMMEDIATE reason to keep the engines
of economic growth going. The contributors to this thread raise valid
points. Increased efficiency in our use of raw materials, energy, and
the land needed to expoloit them might offset the tendency of a
growing economy to exploit all of this stuff.
But for how long........
The problem is that economic growth is exponential. Two percent
growth today represents substantially more production (be it actual or
virtual wealth) than two percent growth in 1960, or even 1990. So to
keep pace with growth in GDP (or whatever standard mesasure of
production you want to use), the efficiency with which we use stuff
would have to improve exponentially too for there to be a zero net
effect of growth.
Maybe some processes (the material hardware needed for computer
memory, perhaps) have kept pace with exponential growth. Other
processes, e.g. fuel efficiency, agricultural production, materials
intensity of car manufacture have improved, but not exponentially I
think. Of course, we COULD have increased fuel efficiency a good deal
faster (why didn't we? - one of life's little mysteries, but GM is
about to find out that it should have). Ultimately however, a ceiling
of all efficiencies must be reached.
What will we do then? Rationalization of the "need" for economic
growth is a symptom of denial. Eventually, we are going to be faced
with limits imposed by thermodynamics, and the fact that, no matter
how efficient you are, houses, cars, and even computers will have to
contain certian minimal ammounts of material to remain viable. If we
were to exercise forethought, we would be researching ways to wean
ourselves off of exponential growth before some of those hard limits
arrive at our collective doorstep.
Best,
Andy Park
