Let's be careful here. Countries with stable or declining populations can and do have growing economies. (Think Japan and the EU.)
Also, overpopulation is an ecological concept and it applies to spatial units that have some ecological or physical reality -- planet Earth, the Los Angeles basin, a hillside, a watershed. Most countries, on the other hand, are arbitrarily bounded and I don't think they can be said to be overpopulated any more than a sound can be said to be orange. Jane Shevtsov On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ganter, Philip <[email protected]> wrote: > To All, > > The recent posts on a steady-state economy and economic growth have lost > focus on the ecological underpinnings of any macroeconomic model. Even if > one uses a model that postulates an infinite universe of material resource > (accomplished deus ex machina by substitution and the genie of technology), > one must still account for population size. Steady-state economy is > obviously not possible without steady-state population size unless we are are > willing to condemn future generations to ever-sinking living standards. Andy > Park wonders why we have to grow. Population, population, population. This > is so without considering such evils as worldwide income disparity (and > consequent ecological footprint disparity), which is a significant driver on > growth. If you narrow your focus on the US, which is reasonable given that > the ESA is based in America, and that the US has a monstrous per-capita > footprint and a growing population, one still has to account for growth (even > if migratio! n is a driver on the growth rate) when promoting a shift to a steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting human population size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of freedom, and our religious beliefs but that does not justify ignoring the problem. The history of attempts to affect population growth rate is full of successes, failures, and cautionary examples of bureaucratic tyranny. We might find it easier to promote a steady-state economy if we also recommended policies consistent with our values that promoted a steady-state population size. > > Phil Ganter > Biology Department > Tennessee State University > > > On 12/14/08 12:40 AM, "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ecolog: > > Quite! But I suppose that any decline in support for romantically appealing > "alternatives" that can thus easily convince the taxpayers to support more > and more subsidies for "green" fleecing is encouraging. That means that a > whopping 34% see through the schemes for what they are. > > Nonetheless, even if anthropogenic global warming also turns out to be > hyperflummoxing technically, it still may be just the surrogate needed to put > the brakes on energy waste. Certainly, if one looks at replacing the waste > fraction (Advertizing signs, inefficient transport, concentrated generation) > one will get numbers in infeasible territory. The message that has got to get > out is that, regardless of the reasons used, energy use has got to decline, > and if it does, everybody will be better off (except for the gamblers that > don't care what happens to their children and grandchildren). > > Cutting just the waste fraction out need cause no pain for anybody in the > world--on the contrary, it has more potential than all the "alternative" > profit-centers on the block, and they won't even cost the energy producers a > dime, because they will still be able to gouge their customers ever more, out > of proportion to the reduction in use. If we need more energy reduction, just > going to bed at night need not be a huge sacrifice--and the list goes on, all > without the flocks of yellow-bellied grantsuckers eating the seed corn, if > any is left over after its conversion to alcohol fuelishness. > > This shot across the bow in the "economic" (laughable, eh?) sphere (irony > intended) will seem like a pebble compared to the coming skyrocketing of > energy PRICES, not to mention the VALUE lost in human habitat (even if you > forget all the other species and habitats that will go first, concurrently, > and afterwards) degradation and cultural chaos. The gamblers may be some of > the last to feel the full weight of the resolving of the real factors that > influence life quality at a greatly reduced level of ATTAINABILITY--forget > mere SUSTAINABILITY! But even the Emperiors will have to do without their > gold toilets, not to mention having to beef up their defenses at every level. > > WT > > Apolgies for getting off into opinion territory . . . > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Giesen" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:43 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable > Energies > > >> Odd headline - I read it as "they don't think they will work" while the >> actual reductions in support are from 4 - 8%, and, for two of the >> technologies, way above 50% support (66 and 61%). It is "just a tad less >> faith" instead. >> >> Tom Giesen >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Geoff Patton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> (originally seen in post by Sam White of Cedar Rock Farm/CSA) >>> >>> Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies: >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change- >>> renewable-energy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy>( >>> http://tinyurl.com/56hoah). >>> >>> Cordially yours, >>> >>> Geoff Patton, Ph.D. >>> Wheaton, MD 20902 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Tom Giesen >> 629 NW 29th St. >> Corvallis, OR 97330 >> (541) 554-4162 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The New Scientist Editorial that (re) initiated this Discussion thread > had the following to say about growth: > > "This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow > continuously or face an unpalatable collapse." > > This facet of our economy has always been a bit of a mystery to me. > You are either forever growing; otherwise you face collapse. In the > current system (which we may characterize as socialist / capitalist > after the bail out of money losing and still doomed companies), it > seems "steady state" cannot work. > > It seems to me that this aspect of the economy is the Achilles heel of > any attempt to mitigate carbon emissions, manage fisheries > effectively, or achieve any number of other desirable ecological > outcomes. Tony Blair said it best when he stated that "there is a > mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact". > In simple terms, a politician (even Obama) will always choose to grow > now and pay later. The penalty for not doing so is collapse. > > But these sad facts beg some serious questions that I have been trying > to answer in vain. Maybe you , dear Ecologgers, can offer some answers: > > 1. Why does the globalized economy have to grow or collapse; that is, > what are the mechanics that dictate it. > > 2. What would happen if the global economy grew at, say, 0.5 percent > for 1, 5, 10, or 20 years? > > 3. is there a way to get to a steady state economy from where we are? > That is can we decouple social and political stability from growth? > > I have some thoughts on this that involve the economic multiplier > effect, which is a positive feedback that reinforces the effects of > adding or subtracting money form the economy. But surely it has to be > more complex than that? > > Interestingly, I have been exploring the economic literature (I know, > I know, it's horrific, but someone has to do it!). Turns out that > economists may know a good deal less about economic growht than one > might have imagined. Not so surprisingly, the literature appears to > concentrate on understanding the drivers of growth or how to achieve > more of it. I have searched in vain for literature describing in > detail the consequences of failing to grow..... > > Ciaou, > > Andy Park > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, <a href="http://www.worldbeyondborders.org";>World Beyond Borders</a> Check out my blog, <a href="http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com";>Perceiving Wholes</a> "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
