These are some canny and insightful observations being posted about economic growth and population growth. I only want to address, and briefly, Andy Park's aptly labeled "$700 billion question" about why the wealthy nations remain so obsessed with economic growth. Two quick points about that:
1) Surely it is partly due to the fact that scientists, including ecologists represented by professional, scientifically oriented societies, have left this topic in the hands of conventional economists - who are famous for not acknowledging limits to growth - for so long. 2) There is an "iron triangle," as they'd say in political science, of corporations, politicians whose campaigns are largely financed by corporations, and neoclassical economists surrounding and occupying the economic policy arena. The research of academic economists is often funded by corporations and the professional, practicing economists are appointed by politicians to the economic policy development posts (e.g. in the Fed, Council of Economic Advisors, and Department of Commerce). The three sides of this triangle benefit greatly from economic growth, while much of the rest of society (and of course the environment) suffers as a result of the same economic growth. Read more about this iron triangle in an article that helped motivate The Wildlife Society to take a position on economic growth: http://steadystate.org/files/The_Iron_Triangle.pdf <http://steadystate.org/files/The_Iron_Triangle.pdf> Brian Czech, Visiting Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Andrew Park Sent: Tue 2008-12-16 21:21 To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] ECONOMIC growth, population and a couple of stories 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 > > >
