People who promote "sustainable growth" are talking about enlarging the economy in a way that minimizes the ecological impact of that expansion. Being wiser about how we do things would thus not count as "growth" in the absence of economic expansion, even though one could call it "growth" in terms of intellectual maturity. Unfortunately, there is no amount of economic expansion that is sustainable indefinitely, simply because we live on a finite planet, and not a very big one at that.
Politically, I think even "sustainable growth" is a radical notion in America, and we're a very long way from accepting that we will inevitably come to have no growth, or negative growth. Thus, I don't think it's such a shame for the ESA to be promoting it at this time. Better to offer the biggest pill public might be willing to swallow and thereby buy us a little time than to advocate the full treatment and be dismissed as alarmist and extremist. The ESA can't afford to be politically irrelevant. That said, it's still important for people and agencies with less stake in being perceived as mainstream to argue for deliberate zero-growth policies, preferably in calm, rational terms. The populace won't adopt a view that is never expressed, and the alternative is to have zero-growth imposed on us by resource limitation. I think the critical question is why economic expansion is good. People conflate economic expansion with its positive outcomes, so that expansion itself becomes the chief goal for any given economy. If our focus were on obtaining maximum benefit (comfort, security, liberty) for minimal cost (war, disease, poverty, crime, pollution), we would see economic growth, decline, or constancy as means to that end, and we would stop believing that expansion is inherently good and that anything else in inherently bad. Jim C. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Kelly Stettner <[email protected] > wrote: > Dear fellow/sister ECOLOGgers; > > I am not a member of ESA, but I have never had a problem with "sustainable > growth" per se. I don't see it as continuing on the road that we're on > economically or developmentally, but I see it as growth in new ways, new > attitudes and new ways of thinking. To me, "growth" does not mean > "unfettered use" or "unlimited consumption." It means change, adaptation, > paradigm shifts. > > "But as the United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, > we see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates the > value of natural ecosystems." > > Why can't that include Low Impact Development? Growth and development that > incorporates the dynamism of the natural world we live in? Why does growth > have to be viewed as "bad"? And by what standards do we measure "value"? > Society at least needs to be honest about that; when using the word "value" > in the sense of "natural ecosystems," what are we talking about? Property > or real estate value? Development value? Wildlife habitat value? Tourism > value? Recreational value? Scenic value? Is nature valuable just cuz it > exists? If everything not associated with humans is "natural," then what > are we? > > What I've been thinking is that, if we want humanity to be part of the > natural world and not separate from or above it, we must learn to grow > within it as much as we learn to grow it within ourselves. Pardon the > touchy-feely aspect of that, but we really need to act as though we belong > here and embrace the idea that all organisms on the planet struggle for > survival ~ every living thing (plants, animals, insects, you name it) > competes for resources, outsmarts predators, consumes and makes waste, > defends itself, attacks and invades, and seeks to gain new territory through > growth. So far as I know, humans are the only beings that can consciously > modify our behavior and decide to limit our growth through intellect rather > than instinctive reaction. > > Just my 2 cents' worth. > > Respectfully, > Kelly Stettner > > > > Black River Action Team (BRAT) > 45 Coolidge Road > Springfield, VT 05156 > http://www.blackriveractionteam.org > > > > Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:22:39 -0400 > From: "TUFFORD, DANIEL" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in > Economic Decisions > > I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not know = > what was actually said or done, but I can understand this position in = > the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail Brian mentioned = > sound science, which is certainly a high priority. But "policy" in the = > functioning economic and political arena implies political salience. A = > no-growth position (which I personally support) will immediately = > marginalize the organization that proposes it. The position is fine in = > the context of an ongoing discussion of philosophical approaches but is = > a boat-anchor in the real world of feasible policy development. > =20 > This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but I = > do not know of a practical alternative. > =20 > Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. > University of South Carolina > Department of Biological Sciences > 715 Sumter St. (mail) > 209A Sumwalt (office) > Columbia, SC 29208 > 803-777-3292 (phone) > 803-777-3292 (fax) > [email protected] > http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford > > ________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = > Heather Reynolds > Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems = > Should Figure in Economic Decisions > > > > I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the=20 > myth of "sustainable growth" in its recent position statement on the=20 > ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing=20 > oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting. > > The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed=20 > message. In one breadth it acknowledges that "there are limits to the=20 > amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain" and in the=20 > next it is claiming that "the problem is not economic growth per se"=20 > and that "[we can] move toward sustainable growth." It is unfortunate=20 > that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its=20 > recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound=20 > economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the=20 > recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of=20 > advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are=20 > confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing=20 > their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided=20 > that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to=20 > grow without limits. > > Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we=20 > call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on=20 > "sustainable growth" that they will jump on to justify our continuing=20 > drive for ever increasing economic growth, which by the laws of=20 > nature, can lead only to a continued overshoot of carrying capacity=20 > and destruction of the green infrastructure that ESA purports to=20 > protect. > > I hope that ESA will continue its discussion of these issues. This=20 > needn't be the last word, of course. As scientists, ecologists live=20 > and breathe the process of reexamining assumptions and adjusting our=20 > models of living systems accordingly. > > Heather Reynolds > Associate Professor > Department of Biology > Jordan Hall 142 > Indiana University > 1001 E 3rd Street > Bloomington IN 47405 > > Ph: (812) 855-0792 > Fax: (812) 855-6705 > [email protected] > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
