Nothing Grows Forever - 0 views
-
Julia Huggins on 11 Nov 10Economics and Politics. "In essence, endless growth puts us on the horns of a seemingly intractable dilemma. Without it, we spiral into poverty. With it, we deplete the planet. Either way, we lose. Unless, of course, there's a third way. Could we have a healthy economy that doesn't grow? Could we stave off ecological collapse by reining in the world economy? Could we do it without starving?" An old idea revisited with a slightly lengthy (but easily read) background on limits to growth and it's place in economic history, plus a new perspective on how a limit to growth might actually work, and what that might look like. I find the concept of ' "uneconomic" growth-growth that actually drives living standards downward' (to improve happiness, nonetheless), and the argument behind it, intriguing. This is on page 4. After page 5 it starts to look like an idealistic no-grow-utopia. But then this is addressed in the conclusion, as well as some theories about the psychological changes that would have to happen. Then they bring it on back home to politics, and last but not least a reminder of our biological-ecological pending doom. Oh, all the environmental interdisciplinary-ness! "When it comes to determining the shape of our economy, the planet may possess the most powerful invisible hand of all."
- ...1 more comment...
-
Micah Leinbach on 12 Nov 10http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/18/the-no-growth-fantasy.html A counter. The ghost of Malthus will forever haunt no-growth economists, as the ultimate "we tried that already". And the train of thought is reasonable. Malthusian fears about population are one example. There is also a long list of oil/energy scares where people claimed prices were going up and supplies were going down, but adjusting for inflation proved the error of the former and time proved the error of the latter. When history, politics, and economic theory all oppose the no-growth idea, its no surprise that its viewed with a lot of healthy skepticism. That said, I'm a big fan of Herman Daly and the idea that the economy needs to be reformed. Because GDP is an awful way to measure prosperity. But to have an alternative is equally difficult - what should the standard of success be for the great human experiment? Happiness is normally the benchmark. And to academics that sounds all right, because happiness is generally seen as people spending time amongst their families, art, and high culture. But is that naturally what makes people happy? Consumerism was in a large part rooted in a desire for happiness also. Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has. Higher standards of living all over do have economic roots, though that is not neccessarily inherent to them. There is a lot more to say on this, but its a long enough comment as it is, so I'll leave that for another time. I do feel its one of the more serious debates of our (all?) time though, and I'm really glad you brought it up.
-
Julia Huggins on 12 Nov 10Obviously, I don't know or care too much about economics. I dont know how my conversations keep ending up here. But. "Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has." Really? Who, to you, qualifies as "people"? And how do you define better? Soaring rates of depression, chemical dependency, and obesity? Or maybe it's these lives that are better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0U_xmRem4)?
-
Micah Leinbach on 13 Nov 10Perhaps because it relates so much to the various issues we have declared to be running rampant in the world today? It is very much connected to any environmental issue. Among a range of other issues. Anyways, I wrote a pretty lengthy response to your questions. I'll post the primary response to your questions here. A lot of it is based on the differences between economics, politics, industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism. In the tradition of Diigo debates, I have crafted a google site. https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/home The main page directly answers the question. The other page sets up some distinctions I see, personally, beteen various economic systems. I do not cite academic sources there, and I'm sure it would not take long to find economists who disagree with me, for what it is worth. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to flesh it out with other's ideas, and I apologize for that.