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
