---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Giesen <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMIC growth, population and a couple of stories To: [email protected]
In any culture, myths about society, the human individual, ecological circumstances, and economic preferences all interact all the time - they define the culture. They needn't be rational, and seldom are, it seems. Ecological systems, however, are finite, whereas human dreams and economic wishes need not be. In time, being finite, nature rules. Overpopulation might be defined as a condition which, if not corrected, leads to an early rule by nature. Nature bats last. Tom Giesen On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Andrew Park <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi again, > > Sure, growing populations demand that economies grow. Either that, or the > population will exist in a world of diminishing per capita resources. > > But wait! Many economies in Europe continue to grow even though their > population is stagnating. Further, they continue to be obsessed with > economic growth, and currently, the lack of it. Why? That is the $700 > billion question. The answer, which appears only to be dimly perceived even > by professional economists, lies in the nature of modern (i.e. post 1820) > economies. The economic multiplier, whereby a dollar spent ends up > generating more than a dollar in additional revenue, can work in reverse. > i.e a dollar not spent can cause more than a dollar of deflation. > Technology and productivity gains produced by technology demand further > gorwth in consumption. > > These factors do not proviude a complete answer for why economies have to > grow or collapse, but the vast literature on economic growth appears ot be > silent on the subject. We can say, however, that populatinon is only one > factor in the growth conundrum. > > My previous question had to do not with the incentives that lie behind > growth, but in the mechanics of growth that produce this catch 22 of growth > or collapse. > > As to the question of cultural imperatives behind population growth, here > are two short stories. > > [1] - I go into a bar in tanzania, and get engaged in the usual > conversation, why aren't you married; What, you have no children?". "So, > how many kids do you have", I ask the guy at the bar. "Ten". "Wow, that's a > lot of kids". "Yes, and I must have more". "But don't they cost a lot to > keep fed and clothed?" "Why yes, they do, but I have ot have many children, > becasue otherwise, how can I come here and drink beer?" "Beer?!!" "Yes, > when I come here to see my friends, how could I hold up my head and drink > beer without having may children". > > [2] - I am in a pickup truck on a dirt road in Mexico. I engage the lady > passenger in conversation. "So, signora, are you married". "Yes". "Kids?" > "Yes, I have five." "Five, wow; that must be quite a handfull?" "Oh no, I > would like to have more?" "You'd like more; how come?" "Why, to be more > happy of course!!!!!!!!!!!!" > > > Best, > > Andy > > > > Quoting "Ganter, Philip" <[email protected]>: > > 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 migration 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 >> >> >> >> -- Tom Giesen 629 NW 29th St. Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 554-4162 -- Tom Giesen 629 NW 29th St. Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 554-4162
