Volker and Forum (David, I goofed and clicked this out to you before it was
finished; hope you can catch the first one and delete it):
Thanks for your comments. However, I’m having some difficulty in tying your
general remarks to my specific statements or those of the original post. If
you would like to either respond to the questions and comments I have
inserted using [[double-brackets]] into your text or by similarly inserting
your comments into my previous message and/or other messages to which they
are relevant so that I can readily understand your points of reference in
context, that might expedite advancing the issues without getting
sidetracked. If you are not reading something into my remarks that isn’t
there, I hope you will help me communicate more clearly. For the most part,
I suspect that we do not disagree on most of your points.
I quite agree with your remarks about species. My point is that culture is
anti-Nature, by its nature. Other organisms cannot go on consuming their
prey without limiting their own populations or degrading the “quality of
life” of the species; Homo sap. has deluded himself into thinking otherwise.
Stress is a double-edged sword; it moves the organism toward survival and
reproduction (“growth”) up to a point where the “returns” diminish; if this
continues, the population can decline to a point where it cannot recover. I
think it is vital that ecologists and others persevere in analyzing the
world and its life as it is, not according to political biases. Yea, though
I resemble your political remarks remarkably.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Volker Bahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wayne Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ecological Society of America:
grants, jobs, news" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: ECONOMICS AND ECOLOGY Growth or system dynamics and trends?
I know what you mean. Yet; the argument is too fluffy for me. [[Can you be
more precise about what you find fluffy? Are you referring to the difference
between economic/cultural “growth” and the growth of organisms/populations
or something else?]] I don't think that the problem is a semantic one [[Did
you intend this as an independent comment, or did you believe that is what I
was implying? For what it’s worth, I don’t think “the problem” (I’m not sure
what you mean by “the problem”) is a semantic one either, so I suppose we
are in agreement on that. It is my understanding that the issue under
discussion is “growth” in the cultural sense and its effects on
ecological/biological systems. My point is that an understanding of growth
in the biological sense would help in understanding, if not managing, growth
in the cultural sense.]] and I don't think that trying to emulate natural
systems will be a complete answer (not that you said that directly, but it
is somewhat implied in your posts). [[What did I say that implied that I
consider anything a "complete" answer? I did not intend to suggest that
“trying” to emulate natural systems; my point was that natural systems can’t
get away with “runaway” growth forever, and that I suspect that the
principle will ultimately hold for cultural systems like cultural
“economies.” I am taking a swipe at cultural economies here, because I don’t
think they are very economical; on the contrary, profit is increasing based
on waste and less and less on “natural increase.” This does get more
complicated, perhaps, but not merely semantic in the popular (semantic?)
sense of the word.]] Yes, natural systems have so far worked surprisingly
well, but no, there is nothing "willingly" synergistic or mutual beneficial
in them. [[How did you get the idea that I was implying "willingly" in
connection with synergy?]] Species that don't have a large enough growth
rate perish. It's that simple. Plants certainly don't produce oxygen so that
we can breath. Maybe species that have too high of a growth rate perish,
too, but are there examples of
this actually happening in nature? [[In addition to my second paragraph
above, I might add that populations do crash as a result of their “success”
(or “growth”). In the case of most organisms, their numbers are regulated by
stress factors, at least soon enough to prevent complete extinction. Those
which do not adapt to change sufficiently, or whose populations are driven
down by one or more external factors, can face extinction, no?]]
We are a part of nature, dependent on nature and yet we play in a different
league - a league of unprecedented destructive power [[A product of
culture.]]. No doubt, we can grow ourselves to death. We may be able to look
to nature for inspiration on how to do better, but our mechanism needs to be
quite different, namely a conscious process of evaluation of the past to
make better decisions for the future. [[Yes, but I suspect that learning
from the past is not enough.]] Nature just is. [[Quite!]] I doubt that there
are species out there that make long-term plans to keep growth in check. [[I
share your doubts.]] Certainly, there are some species that consciously (or
not) forgo reproduction in a bad year, but that's hardly comparable with the
level of thinking and planning we will have to do. [[Ibid.]]
To me the problems are very much political ones. The current crisis is a
great point in case. We enjoyed (or suffered under - depending on
perspective) high single to double digits of economic growth for decades.
Now we experience a contraction of less than a percent and everybody freaks
out. That tells you how ridiculously dependent we have
made ourselves on a kind of growth that is not sustainable and that will
inevitably lead to our demise if we don't smarten up Brian Czech style
(steady-state economy). There is much work to do because the knee-jerk
answer to all problems society faces has been "economic growth" for decades.
Unemployment? More economic growth! Crappy products that nobody wants? If
there is enough economic growth, you can even sell those! Millions of poor
people in the richest country of the world? More economic growth (trickle
down propaganda)! [[No argument here!]]
The neo-cons, free marketeers, [[corporate welfare muthas]] de-regulators,
anti-government crusaders of yesterday suddenly all united in calling on
government to intervene in an unaffordable massive way. They tossed all
their supposedly high-held ideals over-board over night when their holiest
cow of all was at stake: economic growth. Now that gets me worried.
Senselessly throwing trillions at a faltering economic paradigm is a clear
sign of what our leaders want to do and will do: lock us into a single path
towards more economic growth. That is how they did it with the poor
countries: encouraged and allowed them to go into enough debt to constrain
their options pretty much to one thing: Maximize short-term profits ignoring
everything else (future sustainable development, externalized costs,
environment etc) to service the debt. We are in the process of locking
ourselves into the same spiral. [[Again, again, I quite agree. I am only
suggesting that the ecological/biological/evolution “model” is
instructive—perhaps that goes to an even greater depth than any of us are
now aware of.]]
Volker Bahn
Wayne Tyson wrote:
<pre wrap>Ecolog Forum:
"Growth" is another term that has been transmogrified over the years,
hijacked by hucksters and used as a club with which the populace can
be both baited and frightened. Or, if you prefer, a double-edged sword
that slashes on both strokes, not to mention its piercing potential.
Growth in a biological sense means something far different from
"growth" in an "economic" sense. To put it briefly, "growth" in
biology is a cyclical process, whereas the popular conception of
growth is, despite economic "cycles," thought of as a linear
progression rather than an integrated process of formation,
reformation, and synergistic relationships that are mutually
beneficial. Life goes on because of this regardless of how the human
mind conceives it, so while an argument in favor of linear progression
can be made if the statistical blinders are narrow enough (or if the
change takes longer, if the feedback loop is large enough) to mask the
interaction of unknown quantites, in ecology/biology or economics,
Nature will ultimately "bat last." Students of economic systems might
do well to study how life forms adapt to change, and the consequences
of failing to adapt.
Adaptations themselves create change, and the final analysis for any
system is the trend resulting from the reconciliations of adaptations
in the face of truly external changes and constants.
WT
I invite critical analysis.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil K Dawe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Failure in the Chesapeake Bay
Another nail in the coffin of economic growth, and its fundamental
conflict with biodiversity conservation, should we choose to wield the
hammer.
*Restoration of the Bay a failure and will remain so,”*
*argues environmental writer Tom Horton***
“The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is a failure after 25 years and
will remain so until political and environmental leaders stop embracing
rapid, unending growth,” says environmental writer Tom Horton.
In his study he argues: “A fatal blind spot remains in the best
strategies to save the Bay. The blind spot is our allegiance--some would
say addiction--to perpetual economic growth, and to encouraging an
ever-expanding population of human consumers to support it.
“This is our mantra: Growth is good, or necessary, or at least
inevitable. So unchallenged is this premise that we discuss it little
more than the gravitational force that holds us to the planet."
In the study the longtime Baltimore /Sun/ environmental reporter and
columnist details how both government and environmentalists focus “only
on the impacts of our lifestyles, acting as if it does not matter how
many of us are living around the Bay.”
He makes the point that this approach, though it is vital to the Bay's
restoration, is a half-measure, doomed to fail so long as rapid growth
continues. He challenges the myth that growth is inevitable, or
necessary to achieve economic prosperity, and talks candidly about
foreign immigration, the largest source of population growth.
"By an end to growth," Horton writes, "we do not mean an end to
capitalism, stock markets, innovation, or even greed and corruption, but
rather a shift to economic /development/ to better serve those already
here versus making endless and expensive accommodations for all who
might be induced to come.
“Ending growth is a debate needing to happen. Once we begin to shift the
lens, to dare to consider alternatives to the current, growth-is-good
mentality, many ‘goods’ will become ‘bads.’
“Spending on wider roads, more power plants, bigger sewage treatment
plants, now seen as necessary investments to accommodate growth, will
look like taxpayer subsidies to a few sectors of the economy that are
growth's only real beneficiaries.”
Horton argues: “It will be virtually impossible to reclaim our numerous
environmental messes as population continues rising from the current 304
million Americans to a projected half billion shortly after 2050; the
Bay watershed, currently with 17 million people, is adding 1.7 million
every decade.”
A stable population and a steady state economy will not guarantee
environmental or social Utopia, he argues, "but it will give us
breathing room, leave us options we will not otherwise have.
"There is scarcely a problem facing us that can't be solved easier in
the absence of rapid growth."
The report has been prepared on a grant from The Abell Foundation and
can be downloaded from www.abell.org <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
