NationStates Jolt Archive

Growth, unstopable, unceasing, growth, is obviously destorying this planet's ecosphere. And the more we grow the economy, the more depletion occurs on a finite planet, and the lower its carrying capacity for future generations becomes.

I've recently found out about ecological economics and the concept of a steady-state economy, which reject economic gowth as a premise of heathly economy and society. Basically, unlike neoclassical economics, which externalized Nature and social factors, and assumes that more=better, unlimited raw matter, and human ingenuity as a replacement for lack of material, this is fundametally different. Ecological economics says that the economy exists embedded within the ecospehere. When it grows, it encroaches upon the existing available resources, which are finite. The only sustainable economy is one that only depltes at the rate of replacement through anabolic (carbon fixation through photosynthesis) and geophysical processes. Economy, for human purposes, is a process of consumtion, metabolism, and depletion. That's the nature of being a heterotrophic animal. This is ok - as long as the scale is one which can be sustained by processes that absorb the waste, refurbish the raw matter, etc. Unfortunately we've far surpassed that scale.

Combined with very real data which shows that human wellbeing and hapiness bears no relationship to wealth (beyond a fairly low threshold of basica needs), this radical shift in economic assumptions makes sense. The main premises of neoclassical economics are pure myth: people are not happier with more, this planet's ecospehere cannot sustain infinite growth, and human ingenuity certainly cannot replace raw material (ie. "perfect substitution" is bunk). Very real Data (in biology, geophysics, psychology, history) shows this undeniably. Less wealth, and a far smaller economy is essentially the only way to avoid some sort of collapse.

Spiffing, or something.

Makes things awfully dull for us ambitious male types, and ambitious female types, though.

"What're we actually working for?"
"Living like we did in the 1200s or something"

"Ah right, nice one" is not going to be your answer. Something resembling "bugger that, I like owning a car and a nice house for myself and family" is going to resemble the truth.

By the way, the term "steady state" is actually an incredibly relevant analogy recruited from biology: living cells exist in a steady state. That is, they are incredibly far from equilibrium (they maintain steep gradients and delineations berween themselves and the outside world), but through regulation cells maintain a fairly constant environment within themselves. Equilibrium in fact equals death. So, for example, some cells continuoulsy pump protons out of them in order to maintain a constantly high electrochemical potential over their membranes. It's steady, but very far from an equilibrium situation of no electrochemical gradient. This is a steady state.

Steady state economics has a similar reasoning. The ecospehere is never in quilibrium of any sort, but it can (and must) attain some sort of steady state between in/out, production/consumption in order to continue existing.

Herman Daly, and incredible, precient economist came up with this idea.

Herman Daly, and incredible, precient economist came up with this idea.
Does he personally live like some kind of peasant in an African backwater to do his bit?

Does he personally live like some kind of peasant in an African backwater to do his bit?

This kind of thinking is why things won't change - you will be that person cutting down the last tree on Easter Island thinking 'If I don't someone else will'.

Sustainable economics does not mean no competition, it does not mean no innovation and it does not mean heading back to the stone age.

I think we certainly need to rethink how we view economic growth. As you say, it does not make people happier, can be bad for the environment, and frankly, is just more than we need right now.
However, I think it is possible for the economy to grow without our environmental impact growing tremendously. For example, we are currently helping fund a business that runs several gaming forums. Its impact on the environment is exactly zero, unless you count things such as electricity, employees driving to work, etc. But even these can come without carbon emissions or other eco-evils.
"Sustainable growth" is certainly necessary. Not only is envionmentally friendly, it doesn't make much economic sense to kill the goose with the golden eggs. But I don't see zero growth as a positive. As Yootopia said, no ambitious person aims to improve his situation as little as possible.

EDIT: I also question the phrase "finite planet." Technically it is true, but the planet (and sun) are so large that on our scale, they are practically infinite. Specific resources aren't, oil is a good example, but if we slow down growth we will give the planet time to recover.

Does he personally live like some kind of peasant in an African backwater to do his bit?Obviously, this is an issue of public policy. Like all collective decisions, individuals can make a difference, but real impact can only be felt through large shifts. It is a pertinant question though: how do you live consistantly with such an idea and also make headway in the vast communication and political challenges that could actually make it work?

I don't think that living in and african Backwater would be necessary actually. I, for example, basically have the skills in food production, and the energy technology necessary to live fairly comfortably off the grid in B.C. And I intend to do it in the future.

Certainly, telling people that their lives, cars, houses and very jobs are destrying the prospects of future generations, and aren't even making htem happy is a tough message. It's also true.

The economy and the environment are not mutually exclusive.

This kind of thinking is why things won't change - you will be that person cutting down the last tree on Easter Island thinking 'If I don't someone else will'.
No, really, what does he do personally, though?
Sustainable economics does not mean no competition, it does not mean no innovation and it does not mean heading back to the stone age.
How are we going to move around people and goods with no impact?

Shank's pony? Too slow. Bicycle? Needs rubber. Bus? No.

How are we going to produce goods with little to no impact?

Economies of scale are handy, but they require a serious start-up impact on the world, and if you start making tools etc. essentially by yourself they you lose a lot of resources simply through their over-capacity for what you're currently doing.

I personally support more use of renewable energies - these are both a feasible and clean method of power generation. I do not support reverting back 500 years just so that this planet dies more slowly, with everyone living in communes instead of cities.

If we break the environment we'll just buy a new...don't worry, nothing to see here.

No, really, what does he do personally, though?

I genuinely can't work out the tone of this - I'm guessing you're taking me to task for making assumptions, which is fair enough but I'm just writing ya know?

How are we going to move around people and goods with no impact?

Shank's pony? Too slow. Bicycle? Needs rubber. Bus? No.

How are we going to produce goods with little to no impact?

Economies of scale are handy, but they require a serious start-up impact on the world, and if you start making tools etc. essentially by yourself they you lose a lot of resources simply through their over-capacity for what you're currently doing.

I personally support more use of renewable energies - these are both a feasible and clean method of power generation. I do not support reverting back 500 years just so that this planet dies more slowly, with everyone living in communes instead of cities.

Why does it have to be 'no impact', where does it have to be either/or?

There's a good-ish book called Affluenza, commenting on the growing discord about where we're going in life and the rising social issues associated, and where I'm mostly coming from is better written in the PRC thread - I'll link to it as it's easier than writing out my opinion on this.

Previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13538956&postcount=75)

Yay for tabs.

No economic growth is only feasible with no population growth. I can't see that happening right now.

No economic growth is only feasible with no population growth. I can't see that happening right now.

well, other than the fact that it is already happening in the global north...

also, we could actually cut our wealth production in half and a more fair distribution would result in the vast majority of people seeing an increase.

Does he personally live like some kind of peasant in an African backwater to do his bit?

since that is not required, why would he?

Extensive growth and intensive growth are not the same thing; extensive growth is impossible to maintain indefinitely with finite resources, but an economy can grow intensively ad infinitum; there isn't really a set limit and the limit itself hinges entirely on the continued growth of the economy.

It is neither desirable nor achievable to pursue a zero-growth economy.

also, we could actually cut our wealth production in half and a more fair distribution would result in the vast majority of people seeing an increase.

And what happens when those people want more, or when some of them are more successful than others? Without economic growth, the only way they will be able to earn more than others is to take it from someone else.

Non-growth economies are zero-sum games.

The economy and the environment are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. We can come up with policies that enhance growth while helping the environment. James Martin has a number of suggestions in his book he Meaning of the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-21st-Century-James-Martin/dp/1573223239).

Benjiman Friedman has documented how economic growth generally increases openess, tolerance, and deomcracy in his book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Consequences-Economic-Growth/dp/0679448918).

Extensive growth and intensive growth are not the same thing; extensive growth is impossible to maintain indefinitely with finite resources, but an economy can grow intensively ad infinitum; there isn't really a set limit and the limit itself hinges entirely on the continued growth of the economy.

It is neither desirable nor achievable to pursue a zero-growth economy.

define your terms

define your terms

Extensive growth: Producing more by increasing inputs of physical goods and resources.

Intensive growth: Producing more by using existing resources more efficiently and/or growth driven by non-material production such as technology.

I agree. We can come up with policies that enhance growth while helping the environment. James Martin has a number of suggestions in his book he Meaning of the 21st Century (http://www.amazon.com/Meaning-21st-Century-James-Martin/dp/1573223239).

Benjiman Friedman has documented how economic growth generally increases openess, tolerance, and deomcracy in his book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Consequences-Economic-Growth/dp/0679448918).

awesome dude.

And what happens when those people want more, or when some of them are more successful than others? Without economic growth, the only way they will be able to earn more than others is to take it from someone else.

Non-growth economies are zero-sum games.Indeed it is a zero-sum game. And so it should be. I feel that you all don't grasp the concept of a finite planet. The mantra of growth being eesential to fullfilment, hapiness, prosperity, comfort, stimulation, etc etc etc is so incredibly ingrained that it's hard to break it. But this is in fact what ecological economics suggest (and backs up with fact, not absurd neoclassical economic assumptions).

You mention in another post that there can be "growth" dependant on no resources, or "efficienies". This merely obfuscates the matter. ALL economic activity (Yootopia is absoloutely right here) involve the consumption of energy resources. Economy in the natural world (=ecology) is constrained by scarcity of available energy resources. Species therefore have growth capacity defined by their environment, and the energy it supplies and replenishes. Humans are capable of mining, extracting, and changing our environment such that there is no obvious carrying capacity, but the result of this, of course, is that the biosphere's physical capabiulity to sustain further mining, extraction, and change (not to mention damage) in the future is severly reduced. We are seeing consequences of this: climate change, resource depletion, polution, and so on are problems that will lead to an eventual collapse of our civilization.

Too many people causing too many problems.

I can't understand how the ideas of zero-growth and mutual harmony in nature persist. All it takes is 1 invasive species to show that every life form is in it for themselves and for their own species. Do you think that zebra muscles care that they are destroying midwest lake ecosystems? Of course not, they have 2 instictive drives created by millions of years of evolution; consume and multiply. No species on this planet seeks balance with their neighbors, if they had the chance they'd consume everything they could and spread over the face of the planet, the only thing stopping them from doing so right now is something eating them.

The problems facing humanity today, both economic and environmental, will not be solved by terminating growth. Scientists, economists, engineers, doctors, etc. are working to solve our problems like hunger, sickness, and coming up with more efficient use of resources and finding new ones to use in place of what drives us now. Besides, if we ever run out of room here there is a whole lot of room in the sky and that's one thing you can't take from me. I wouldn't mind a Dyson Sphere.

I can't understand how the ideas of zero-growth and mutual harmony in nature persist. All it takes is 1 invasive species to show that every life form is in it for themselves and for their own species. Do you think that zebra muscles care that they are destroying midwest lake ecosystems? Of course not, they have 2 instictive drives created by millions of years of evolution; consume and multiply. No species on this planet seeks balance with their neighbors, if they had the chance they'd consume everything they could and spread over the face of the planet, the only thing stopping them from doing so right now is something eating them.
Quite true. Otehr species are not motivated by benevolence, or the desire to maintain some sort of "balance". Very often they have reached a "balance" over time out of constraints on the energy and habitat available to them. When such constraints are released or conditions changed (often due to human activities) new opportunities open up and things change. No otehr species though has reached quite the levels of impact humans have. Mining, industry, industrial fishing, large-scale agriculture, and urbanization has changed landscapes and ecosystems profoundly. This isn't an argument about supposed virtue. It's a practical approach to an economic system which is by definition not capable of being sustained.

[QUOTE]The problems facing humanity today, both economic and environmental, will not be solved by terminating growth. Scientists, economists, engineers, doctors, etc. are working to solve our problems like hunger, sickness, and coming up with more efficient use of resources and finding new ones to use in place of what drives us now. QUOTE]This is the technological optimist approach. "if only we can increase efficiency and get smarter, we don't meed to worry about absolute numbers". Too bad this is total fiction. The facts don't add up. Increase in efficiency simply leads to increase in absolute consumption (this has been demostrated). If you want to talk about the biosphere, you MUST deal with absolute amounts: energy, land, human bodies, resources, and so on. The fact htat our economy is now based on creations of our imagination does not decouple it from the basic materials that we are completely connected to.

Indeed it is a zero-sum game. And so it should be. I feel that you all don't grasp the concept of a finite planet. The mantra of growth being eesential to fullfilment, hapiness, prosperity, comfort, stimulation, etc etc etc is so incredibly ingrained that it's hard to break it. But this is in fact what ecological economics suggest (and backs up with fact, not absurd neoclassical economic assumptions).

And the end result of a zero-sum game are the same problems I mention; unless we're willing to lead our society in to decline and eventual destruction, we have no option but to keep expanding and securing new supplies of resources for further expansion. The very nature of biological organisms is that they must grow or perish; if an organism does not retain that drive, it will go extinct.

Unless you could achieve some kind of global tyranny that enforces a specific level of utility, technology, and production to ensure a constant level of economic output, a healthy zero-growth economy is impossible. Everyone's varying desires and personal utility will result in economic growth.

You mention in another post that there can be "growth" dependant on no resources, or "efficienies". This merely obfuscates the matter. ALL economic activity (Yootopia is absoloutely right here) involve the consumption of energy resources. Economy in the natural world (=ecology) is constrained by scarcity of available energy resources. Species therefore have growth capacity defined by their environment, and the energy it supplies and replenishes. Humans are capable of mining, extracting, and changing our environment such that there is no obvious carrying capacity, but the result of this, of course, is that the biosphere's physical capabiulity to sustain further mining, extraction, and change (not to mention damage) in the future is severly reduced. We are seeing consequences of this: climate change, resource depletion, polution, and so on are problems that will lead to an eventual collapse of our civilization.

The thing is, our energy needs and all of the problems you mention are only a problem as long as we're using fossil fuels and other damaging sources of energy; every other source of power on the planet, with the exception of perhaps nuclear, is entirely safe and clean with few or no impacts on the biosphere. We can produce more than enough energy from alternative sources to entirely displace fossil fuels; the only reason we don't use more of the others is primarily the economics of doing so.

The world economy can be made considerably more sustainable and still retain a level of growth necessary for economic functioning; the primarily failure right now is the inability of people to factor in the environmental costs of their actions.

Quite true. Otehr species are not motivated by benevolence, or the desire to maintain some sort of "balance". Very often they have reached a "balance" over time out of constraints on the energy and habitat available to them. When such constraints are released or conditions changed (often due to human activities) new opportunities open up and things change. No otehr species though has reached quite the levels of impact humans have.
Well...no. Earth didn't always have the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is does today. Some of the first forms of life on earth changed the atmosphere from anoxic to oxic. Possibly, at least in part, to eliminate competition. Lots of animals build shelters or alter their environments in some way to make them more hospitable.

Mining, industry, industrial fishing, large-scale agriculture, and urbanization has changed landscapes and ecosystems profoundly. This isn't an argument about supposed virtue. It's a practical approach to an economic system which is by definition not capable of being sustained.
Recycling most metals is more profitable than mining and processing new ore. Fish can be farmed with little environmental impact. Vertical farms increase productivity and can sequester carbon dioxide. Coal can be liquified to make cheap gas or can be exported to provide cheap power, clean water, and carbon dioxide for food production to developing nations. New technology and better (and cleaner) methods of manufacturing old tech is the answer to the problems we face.

This is the technological optimist approach. "if only we can increase efficiency and get smarter, we don't meed to worry about absolute numbers". Too bad this is total fiction. The facts don't add up. Increase in efficiency simply leads to increase in absolute consumption (this has been demostrated). If you want to talk about the biosphere, you MUST deal with absolute amounts: energy, land, human bodies, resources, and so on. The fact htat our economy is now based on creations of our imagination does not decouple it from the basic materials that we are completely connected to.
Only a misanthropic luddite could reject technology that could end world hunger. When nations are developed the quality of life rises and birth rates decline because people don't need to have 16 kids to see 4 grow up. When birth rates decline, so does population. Besides, you don't seem to have considered asteroid mining or space stations with gravity rings. The only absolute amounts, the only constraints and limits are those we place on ourselves and physics places on everything. And even then you can bend the rules if only in theory.

How would one implement this steady-state economy? If just one person wants more or builds one shed too many, it'll spur others via competition to get more, and the economy will grow too fast.

The only practical way is to have big brother protecting you from your own greed, and to limit you to having only two kids with your partner. Maybe that works for people in China, but here in the US we actually value our liberty.

What I think you are ignoring is that economies ultimately grow in a free market system not because some politician sets a policy, but rather because individuals work to better their own lives and the lives of their children. To get in the way of that natural process is a serious, devastating step towards 1984.

I think people here have the right idea that the economy and the environment are not mutually exclusive quantities. Our technology can and is reaching a point where our development actually improves the earth's stability.

Your zero-sum gain and rejection of technological solutions doesn't fly because of one observation. The Earth cannot support 6 billion hunter-gatherers. If we never developed farming, we'd have eaten the world to death a long time ago. Strangely, we have more food than people to eat it...must be the tech :)