View Full Version : The Steady-State Economy vs. "Growth"
Gerald Iversen
4-4-14, 11:31am
I was inspired by my recent interview with Brian Czech from the Center for the Advancement of the Steady-State Economy (CASSE). You can hear our conversation
at http://www.jubilee-economics.org/podcast/brian-czech-creating-a-strong-economy-that-does-not-grow.html
He's the author of the recent book "Supply Shock."
Gerald 'Jerry' Iversen
Thanks for the interesting interview. A steady state economy and simple living seem inextricably connected. The Limits to Growth was required reading for one of my economics courses back in the 70's. Even though none of the predictions for social, economic, or populations crashes came to be within the timeline I recall from the book, it still makes good sense to me. I can believe the we can prosper in a steady state, but I can't quite imagine convincing the managers of the nation's global corporations of that.
Sometimes I think mankind will get along as things are with the concept that growth is good, that science will continue to find ways to feed us and find alternate fuels. At least for those of us lucky to live in developed countries. But I can't see it having a good effect on the environment. I enjoyed the interview comments about the Sierra Club in that respect.
I can believe the we can prosper in a steady state, but I can't quite imagine convincing the managers of the nation's global corporations of that.This is key: The way things are now, the growth economy can be imposed on all by its proponents; a steady-state economy can be scuttled almost unilaterally by its opponents.
Thanks for sharing this! I have a big interest in not only steady state, but de-growth, as proposed by Charles Eisenstein. However, steady state is a step in the right direction.
You are right, Rogar and bUU, that it's a tough sell. It's probably going to take something big (like a global fiscal catastrophe) to shake everyone off their belief system about what's best and what's normal.
What's NOT best and NOT normal is a system that depends upon raping the earth's resources and creating huge inequalities of wealth, with few people controlling the rest of us.
Yet, even a catastrophe is as likely as not to prompt the powerful to adopt even more rapacious approaches rather than less rapacious.
Yet, even a catastrophe is as likely as not to prompt the powerful to adopt even more rapacious approaches rather than less rapacious.
I can envision a science fiction book/movie where the world become divided: those who still believe in growth and greed live in one hemisphere and the other half find new ways go about life and business live in the other and then everybody's happy. Trouble is, that's an impossible scenario unless we could figure out a way to also segregate the water and air.
The thing that give me hope is that up until a few hundred years ago, people coexisted with nature. Of course, not all political systems throughout history have benefited all the populace, but some have. We have to somehow get back to the knowing that we are not separate from nature and each other. That belief in separation is the cause of this imbalance and exploitation.
This is a great movie by Tom Shadyac and part of it makes a case for the biology of connection among us. It's free and you can watch online. http://www.iamthedoc.com
The problem is that our economy has, since 1913, been set up to require growth because all the money in it is loaned into existence as interest bearing debt by the federal reserve. Without growth the holders of the debt have to default. A change to a steady state economy would require that the banks, who profit so extensively from the current system, be willing to allow a new system to be put in place. That isn't going to happen until the point when the current system collapses under its own weight.
The problem is that our economy has, since 1913, been set up to require growth because all the money in it is loaned into existence as interest bearing debt by the federal reserve. Without growth the holders of the debt have to default. A change to a steady state economy would require that the banks, who profit so extensively from the current system, be willing to allow a new system to be put in place. That isn't going to happen until the point when the current system collapses under its own weight.
That's only 100 years ago.. That doesn't make it immutable. The more people learn about alternatives, the stronger the web we'll have when the currently accepted way fails us. We don't have to resign ourselves to The World Is Flat. First step--educate ourselves and others.
Considering how fringe Ron Paul's calls to end the fed were considered I'd say it will be a difficult road. That said, I hope I'm wrong and that you' re right because the currently accepted way has already failed the vast majority of us.
The problem is that our economy has, since 1913, been set up to require growth because all the money in it is loaned into existence as interest bearing debt by the federal reserve. Without growth the holders of the debt have to default. A change to a steady state economy would require that the banks, who profit so extensively from the current system, be willing to allow a new system to be put in place. That isn't going to happen until the point when the current system collapses under its own weight.
Interesting point. Loans to finance business operations have gone back way more than a hundred years. As I see it, a company has to make enough money to cover all of their expenses including cost of goods sold, operation expenses, and the cost of debt. The cost of debt is no different than the other expenses a company has to cover to survive. I'm not sure I see anything explicitly saying that companies have to grow, or even make a profit. What I see as the driver behind growth, at least for larger companies, is the return stockholders expect from their investments. Which usually translates into either current profits or anticipated future earnings. Even then, profits can either be re-invested into the company as growth, or returned to the shareholders as dividends. Although it is unusual, a company that returns all of its profits to the shareholder is not necessarily growing, but possibly just operating efficiently.
ETA: My father was a small business owner. He needed bank loans to replace worn out facilities, to finance inventory, or maybe a relocate from a declining neighborhood to a better one. For the most part his business was pretty much steady state with the same number of employees and the same facility requirements for the 40 years he was in business. He covered his debts and in good years he was able to withdraw more money from the business and there were bad years when he and my family lived on savings. My grandfather, who started the business, obviously had to grow from zero sales to a level to maintain operations. But repaying debt doesn't have to imply growth.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-14, 11:52am
The problem is that our economy has, since 1913, been set up to require growth because all the money in it is loaned into existence as interest bearing debt by the federal reserve. Without growth the holders of the debt have to default. A change to a steady state economy would require that the banks, who profit so extensively from the current system, be willing to allow a new system to be put in place. That isn't going to happen until the point when the current system collapses under its own weight.
I've never understood this argument really. I think what the system may require is ever more debt or continual money creation (the same thing right?). I guess which may be linked to growth as without growth this may be inflationary? And which may be linked to growth because it creates a sink or swim environment where some are bound to default?
Suppose a bank lends $100 out to the total economy (ok we're using ridiculous numbers for simplification purposes) and demands $10 in interest. Without overall economic growth there is no way to pay the $10 in interest back let's say. But WITH economic growth there's still no real way to pay it back seems to me. So with economic growth you have more widgets, the economy has far more houses or cars or something let's say. But there's still no more money. Only more money creation creates the $10 to pay back the loan.
Ok now don't all jump on me for oversimplifying economics (as it's way more complex than me :) ), I'm just saying I often interpret the argument that interest creates the need for growth as that growth itself will somehow create that which is needed to pay back the interest and I don't see how it possibly can. However I can see how a system in which there is not enough money to pay back the interest in total leads to dog eat dog competition among businesses to not be the ones left unable to pay their debt (because someone is bound to lose - zero sum) and this can create a need to "grow or die". However I am not really sure how this differs from the pressure from stockholders to "grow or die" as mentioned.
Btw: I have this book to recommend on alternative money systems. Money by Thomas H Greco Jr. (it has a forward by Vicki Robin). I especially like the description of mutual credit systems. It's the decentralized (and in many ways clearly libertarian) version (others call for public banking) However I do not think we should wait for alternative money systems to address environmental problems because addressing them is WAY too important for that, maybe at best something to be done in parallel.
With the current system it's certainly possible for some to succeed by borrowing money to invest in a business and create value and get ahead. But because all money currently in circulation has been loaned into existence it's impossible economy wide for everyone To be able to pay off their debts since there will always be not enough money to pay all the interest system wide. The result is either that a certain percentage of debt will be defaulted or there has to be a constant devaluation of the money so that the debts can be repaid with devalued money. This is why the fed chair(wo)man always talks of the 'evil' of deflation and the necessity to have inflation.
In a gold standard (or any other standard where money can be created by anyone through work (in a gold standard that work is mining) new money is not created as debt. Once created it does not also create a debt for someone, therefor a stable economy can be created.
If I open a central bank in a society without money and then loan $100 out at 5% interest to people to open businesses then at the end of the year $105 is owed back to me. No matter how successful each of those businesses is there will not be enough money for everyone to pay back the bank. There will still only be $100 in circulation. Some businesses will be successful and pay off their debt. Others won't because there is only $100 in existence. There are two options. Either $5 interest can be taken from the $100 to pay the interest, leaving only $95 in circulation. Eventually this will result in all the money paid back to the central bank as interest and no money in circulation. The alternative is for the central bank to loan out an extra $5. Now there's $105 in existence and the current interest can be paid. But now there's $105 total loaned out by the bank so the interest the following year will be slightly more than $5. But after the first year's interest has been paid there's still only $100 actually circulating. This can go on year after year but the amount circulating will remain $100 while the interst due will continue to grow each year. At some point the productive members of society, as a whole, will have to borrow more money then they can possibly pay in interest. That's the point when the fiat money system has to fail.
However I do not think we should wait for alternative money systems to address environmental problems because addressing them is WAY too important for that, maybe at best something to be done in parallel.
Here is Brian Czeck's response to that (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-czech/climate-change-the-wrong-_b_4632946.html)in the Huffington Post
Apathetic more, you've hit on exactly the problem. The current system requires both the dog eat dog competition and the ever increasing supply of money. Eventually it has to fail because the overall amount of debt has to keep growing forever to prevent collapse. The only way for society as a whole to get out from under this system would be for us as a whole to make that decision to go!with a new system. We all need at least some money because it's not possible to own land without money to pay the property taxes. Only homeless people can ever truly escape it as long as it exists. But since 40% of total wealth is owned by 1% of the population and since the Supreme Court just determined that unlimited sums can be spent on political speech it's likely that the 1% will use their vast vast wealth gained under the current system to defend the current system to the bitter end. The politicians, the only people who can end it, have made it very clear that they work for the bankers who have bought and paid for them.
Two points:
#1: The big idea in Czeck's piece--and, OP, you need to step in here because I'm a newborn to his ideas--is the idea that there would be steady growth in aggregate. Not sure how that works in practical terms, but it's just a way to stabilize the volatility of the market as a whole. I am going to buy Supply Shock to find out more about this, but that's what I've gleaned in an hour's worth of research on the web.
#2: To address the massive incentive to hoard cash and build wealth thereby creating huge disparities between rich and not-rich, disincentives to save, such as negative interest (which is NOT the OPs POV, but mine based on Charles Eisenstein and other proponents of demurrage) would go a long way to evening out the playing field. If money is like food--perishable--how would we behave differently? Yes, we would spend, which might mean consumption, but it also might mean spreading the wealth around.
ANM, I'm going to look into that book you mentioned also.
The problem is that money already is perishable and we have negative interest rates. Anyone who actually purchases stuff and who saves money is well aware that current interest rates are less than inflation.
A better plan, in my opinion, would be interest rates that actually encouraged average people to save. Wealth inequality was much lower a few decades ago and interest rates were much higher.
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-14, 1:29pm
Greco makes a pretty compelling case for ZERO real interest rates (some fees could be attached to borrowing but this would not be simply another name for interest). I don't think we need demurrage (and yes we may already have it anyway to some degree, since it's not that easy to keep up with inflation). Greco also likes to draw a distinction between money where someone's money is actually lent and money that is simply created out of thin air (most bank money lending - really most interest is from money created out of thin air), although I don't know that he believes in interest for either.
Why do people save and try to get more money from their money anyway? Why are billionaires trying to get richer? I don't know, I suspect that is all about power since at that level money is no longer merely money (as you already have as much as you'll ever need or even want) and is POWER as such. But ordinary people might save for when they are unable to work etc.. So if you don't want them to save then? Then there has to be some other way of providing for them then (or else the ice floe?), they can do this by breeding (but is this environmentally wise?) or by society providing in some sense, by a social safety net like social security (only truth is all government projections are ALSO assuming growth) or some other way.
Here is Brian Czeck's response to that in the Huffington Post
I'm really not sure why addressing growth is better than addressing climate change. Because it's more fundamental? Ok. But when the U.S. regularly sabotages global climate agreements how is it actually any more viable as a strategy? That's why I say, keep the focus on all the real environmental problems (climate change, ocean acidification, collapse in ocean life, etc.)
If average people could actually save and be reasonably confident that their hard-earned money wasn't losing value maybe they'd be inclined to not always be spending and consuming.
The reason i save money is so that I can take care of myself when I am old and no longer able to work. If we are going to intentionally devalue it even worse than we currently do then maybe I shouldn't bother.
If average people could actually save and be reasonably confident that their hard-earned money wasn't losing value maybe they'd be inclined to not always be spending and consuming.
The reason i save money is so that I can take care of myself when I am old and no longer able to work. If we are going to intentionally devalue it even worse than we currently do then maybe I shouldn't bother.
In an ideal world, the community would care for you. I know that people think of that and say "horrors!" but there are countries that operate that way. (BTW, I also think "horrors"--my DS has told me he will be happy to take care of me in my old age and my response is, "don't you know you're talking to a very independent, self-reliant woman, you little whippersnapper! I can take care of myself, thank you!" But that doesn't mean I'm right.)
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-14, 1:50pm
If average people could actually save and be reasonably confident that their hard-earned money wasn't losing value maybe they'd be inclined to not always be spending and consuming.
a zero *REAL* interest rate is enough for that. But still should the banks be able to get any interest at all (real or not) from creating money out of thin air?
In an ideal world, the community would care for you. I know that people think of that and say "horrors!" but there are countries that operate that way.
countries? I mean maybe there are tribal groups that operate this way. Countries may have a social safety net, but some social safety nets are based on economic growth assumptions (maybe the better ones aren't, but the U.S. does tend to do that - certainly all pensions are but they tend to make such assumptions even for social security whether or not they really have to).
50% of the US population call the other 50% takers and begrudge them even a dollar of assistance they don't "deserve".
For better or worse Hell will freeze over before that attitude changes.
50% of the US population call the other 50% takers and begrudge them even a dollar of assistance they don't "deserve".
For better or worse Hell will freeze over before that attitude changes.
Well, when the environment collapses and the financial system collapses, and the 50% begrudgers all of a sudden need help, we'll see if they think THEY deserve it.
50% of the US population call the other 50% takers and begrudge them even a dollar of assistance they don't "deserve".
For better or worse Hell will freeze over before that attitude changes.
Conversely, 50% of the population call the other 50% greedy, uncaring and selfish, making it hard for them to feel good about supporting their critics.
Conversely, 50% of the population call the other 50% greedy, uncaring and selfish, making it hard for them to feel good about supporting their critics.
Don't you think that if paradigms were formed that enabled us to see us all as one body and not a collection of parasites and hosts, we might be able to disable the labels of "greedy" and "undeserving poor"? And how might we achieve that? Perhaps by making interdependence a higher value than independence.
Nature flourishes on the precept of interdependence. We have lost that, to our detriment.
Conversely, 50% of the population call the other 50% greedy, uncaring and selfish, making it hard for them to feel good about supporting their critics.
And they seem ungrateful for any support, or even fail to acknowledge that there ARE support systems.
Trashing my gift doesn't make me want to give more.
And now to be polite, I would like to thank Alan for his generous support in Obamacare subsidies which I am planning to use within the next couple of years.
Don't you think that if paradigms were formed that enabled us to see us all as one body and not a collection of parasites and hosts, we might be able to disable the labels of "greedy" and "undeserving poor"? And how might we achieve that? Perhaps by making interdependence a higher value than independence.
Nature flourishes on the precept of interdependence. We have lost that, to our detriment.
For one thing, there are plenty of examples in Nature where one organism takes over when the others surrounding that one do not keep it in check, Kudzu vine immediately comes to mind. Gooseneck loosestrife in my garden is the second thing to come to mind. The plant world doesn't just sweetly coexist with each one healthy and happy with it's neighbors, they fight for nutrient resources. Each year the plant colonies change in my garden because one plant has won out over another, thriving more than others because they "got the goods."
Nature is always an interesting analogy in any argument, one can usually find argument to support any side.
This thread is about the financial world. Looking at parasites (your word) from a purely financial view, how are they contributing to "interdependance?" They aren't. I'm not saying that they can't contribute to society in other ways, but financially--no.
And they seem ungrateful for any support, or even fail to acknowledge that there ARE support systems.
Trashing my gift doesn't make me want to give more.
And now to be polite, I would like to thank Alan for his generous support in Obamacare subsidies which I am planning to use within the next couple of years.
I agree with both of you.. We have created this us vs. them system. Is it nature or nurture? Well, in nature, species cooperate and depend upon each other. We've created a system in which some squirrels enslave other squirrels to get their nuts, which they sit on and which serve no purpose other than to make the squirrels feel good that they have more nuts than other squirrels. Crazy? Well, that's the insanity we've created by ignoring natural systems.
I'd say the status quo has brainwashed us. There are human systems that exist, have existed, or can exist that can address this exploitative monster of separation that we've created.
I always think of my grandparents generation and how they and theirs led their lives. They were farmers/ranchers/shopkeepers who provided for their own families. They knew how to do just about anything practical or they helped each other. The little town close by had a general store, churches, post office etc. - the basics of a village. The shopkeepers did not desire to get rich or build more stores. They just wanted enough to keep their families aloft - to sustain. They pretty much lived year to year saving a bit for their old age. In nature it seems, it is the so-called invasive species that dominate but usually when the other plants are not healthy or ecologically balanced.
Don't you think that if paradigms were formed that enabled us to see us all as one body and not a collection of parasites and hosts, we might be able to disable the labels of "greedy" and "undeserving poor"? And how might we achieve that? Perhaps by making interdependence a higher value than independence.The problem, Catherine, is that would be perceived by the "greedy" as sharing what they think they're entitled to control with the "undeserving poor". Some would even consider a suggestion that "interdependence [should have] a higher value than independence" as "socialism" or "communism", or would apply some other appellation with nefarious undertones.
Elephant in the room: population.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/images/worldpop.png
Population is one of the issues, but not the only one. If we could get the people to consume less, population wouldn't matter as much.
And bUU, I am not that knowledgeable about alternative economic structures, but from what I've seen, the answer to the problem we have with unbridled capitalism does not have to be solved with socialism or communism--I think it's just a matter of evolving capitalism to work out the current kinks and serve the most people and save the environment while we're at it.
The problem, Catherine, is that would be perceived by the "greedy" as sharing what they think they're entitled to control with the "undeserving poor". Some would even consider a suggestion that "interdependence [should have] a higher value than independence" as "socialism" or "communism", or would apply some other appellation with nefarious undertones.
It occurs to me that interdependence should be encouraged, on a micro level such as the family. I'm not sure why we've developed a society where such a high percentage of children live in single parent households and our government, in its benevolence, encourages the practice through subsidization.
Interdependence, as discussed here on a macro level, is "socialism" or "communism". I'm not sure why anyone in favor of that social structure would find correct labeling nefarious.
It occurs to me that interdependence should be encouraged, on a micro level such as the family.
I agree with you there, Alan. I'm reminded of a market research study I did with an Indian psychiatrist. She said that one of her patients came in and told her how she had just given her father gas money for driving her to the appointment. The psychiatrist just could not compute that fact, that the father would not just simply drive his daughter to the appointment.
In fact, she said that it's hard for her to reconcile how attached American families are to the idea of privacy of their sons and daughters and mothers and fathers who have mental illness. When she treats Asian families, the entire family is there in the waiting room supporting the patient.
Population is one of the issues, but not the only one. If we could get the people to consume less, population wouldn't matter as much.
I didn't claim it was the "only" issue. However, exponential growth rates are incompatible with a desire for a "steady state" solution. It's simple math, and systems modeling.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/logistic_curve.gif
I didn't claim it was the "only" issue. However, exponential growth rates are incompatible with a desire for a "steady state" solution. It's simple math, and systems modeling.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/logistic_curve.gif
Yeah, I agree the two factors seem incompatible--and I'm not going argue systems modeling with an engineer. But I am going to read Czeck's book. I'll let you know what I learn.
BTW, some say the carrying capacity of the earth may about 12 billion if we scale back consumption to that of an Indian villager. See this article by Eisenstein. (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/concern-overpopulation-red-herring-consumption-problem-sustainability)
Population is one of the issues, but not the only one.I take bae's point: If population grows, then a steady-state economy won't work.
If we could get the people to consume less, population wouldn't matter as much.It won't matter: As long as population is increasing, whatever economizing done will have only a delaying effect. Furthermore, population will exacerbate all the issues associated with what you called "the current kinks".
And bUU, I am not that knowledgeable about alternative economic structures, but from what I've seen, the answer to the problem we have with unbridled capitalism does not have to be solved with socialism or communism--Practically no one does.
I think it's just a matter of evolving capitalism to work out the current kinks and serve the most people and save the environment while we're at it.I think a lot of liberals feel that way and don't view it as a liberal perspective. But either it is liberal in truth, and surely in the minds of those who aren't liberal, or it is meaningless words that everyone can agree to as words, but when it is time to put them into action, the realization is that the words didn't move the conflict a centimeter away from where it is now.
It occurs to me that interdependence should be encouraged, on a micro level such as the family.Which I would expect from you, but where things go off the tracks is the lack of answers about what happens when that doesn't work, and when it is inapplicable. Furthermore, the conflicts that we're talking about within society exist between groups that are different - families are generally very similar to each other. So you're basically saying that you think the fix to the problem is someplace where there isn't a problem. Sorry: No sale.
And I think you've perfectly demonstrated what I wrote to Catherine: Words without meanings don't move the conflict one centimeter from where it is now. It's just a smokescreen for evading the elephant in the room bae raised, and other aspects of the issue.
Exactly, bUU.
Games theory also provides some insights into the issue - Axelrod's work and the follow-ons are interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
Consider the problem of the optimal solutions to the prisoner's dilemma when cooperation is allowed or not, when history is kept or not, and when trials are iterated amongst the same players, or not.
Then consider the size groups we seem to have evolved to live in.
And be afraid...
http://dieoff.org/Crash2.GIF
The Cooperation stuff is interesting. As the article states, life is not a zero-sum game, and cooperation is at least as motivating, if not essential for survival, as competition.
As early as 1890 the Russian naturalist Petr Kropotkin observed that the species that survived were where the individuals cooperated, that "mutual aid" (cooperation) was found at all levels of existence.[15] By the 1960s biologists and zoologists were noting many instances in the real "jungle" where real animals – presumably unfettered by conscience and not corrupted by altruistic liberals – and even microbes (see microbial cooperation) were cooperating.[16]
Darwin's theory of natural selection is a profoundly powerful explanation of how evolution works; its undoubted success strongly suggests an inherently antagonistic relationship between unrelated individuals. Yet cooperation is prevalent, seems beneficial, and even seems to be essential to human society.
The motivation for cooperating on a global scale in reining in economic growth (and population growth, too) should be our own survival. We are not currently cooperating with nature and I think Nature is going to be the prosecutor in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game.
bUU, words may be cheap and ineffective now because not enough people feel like we have a prisoner's dilemma. I am not in a position to change the world's banking system, but I am also not comfortable accepting a road that I believe is the path of our demise. Maybe that's the liberal POV that you are more than happy to discount, but I am just curious--do you accept that unrelenting growth is not sustainable on this planet? If so, I'm curious to know what you think the appropriate response to that is.
I think you mistook my point. I was explaining that different things have different priorities, and some things have overriding priority, i.e., life over money. Regardless of how we address the long-term issues, we have to make it through the short-term to get there. One approach to getting to the long-term would be, for example, simply killing off everyone who doesn't buy into a specific long-term approach chosen by some cabal, perhaps reserving a few people with special skills who will be caged and subjugated to get them to apply their skills in the best interest of that long-term approach. Of course, that's a horrible idea. However, it isn't the only horrible way of getting from where we are to the long-term. There are many things we are doing, and many things that some would have us do, in order to get to the long-term the way they want to get there. My comments were aimed at opposing some of them.
No one has an answer to what is the approach that will get us to enduring, long-term security for all.* Given the probabilities I'm comfortable saying that those who tell you they do are lying. For all we know, there may not be such an approach. While it serves no constructive purpose to pursue that possibility, denying that possibility is without substantive justification.
It seems clear to me that if there is a viable long-term approach, that it will require interdependence that goes beyond the family to the entirety of society. Our nation very deliberately has a hybrid economy, neither capitalist nor socialist. Standing on two legs is more stable than standing on one or the other. I cannot give you a full outline of the path forward that will get us to utopia, but what I can say is that whatever the answer is, it is something different from what Alan has in mind.
Thanks for clarifying, bUU. I see your points.
Re the population: NYTimes says that fertility rates are dropping (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/opinion/sunday/bye-bye-baby.html?emc=edit_th_20140406&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57469847&_r=0) almost everywhere except for sub-Saharan Africa. Too bad we can't say the same for carbon ppm.
Gardenarian
4-8-14, 2:39pm
There can not be infinite growth on a finite planet.
Industrial civilization, our culture, is killing our word.
I've been reading a lot of Derrick Jensen's (http://www.derrickjensen.org/) books, and he's got it right.
Here is an interview (http://www.earthintransition.org/2014/03/endgame-what-we-can-do/)(text) with Derrick Jensen.
There can not be infinite growth on a finite planet.
Industrial civilization, our culture, is killing our word.
I've been reading a lot of Derrick Jensen's (http://www.derrickjensen.org/) books, and he's got it right.
Here is an interview (http://www.earthintransition.org/2014/03/endgame-what-we-can-do/)(text) with Derrick Jensen.
Thanks for this.. One more reason to look at money in a new way. As the song in Cabaret says, "Money makes the world go 'round." If money is driving growth, the environmental destruction will continue. We have to tell money how to operate differently. And we have to tell ourselves to think differently about money.
Gardenarian
4-8-14, 2:57pm
Population is one of the issues, but not the only one. If we could get the people to consume less, population wouldn't matter as much.
Consumption may be part of the puzzle, but re-using baggies and riding a bike is not going to change the world. This is a game that industry plays to try and make citizens feel like they are the problem. It is not us, as individuals, who are the problem; it is government bureaucrats funded by industry, and industry itself that is to blame.
Which is not to say we can maintain our current lifestyles and stop the destruction of the earth. But the entire culture has to change - car culture, globalization, "defense", technology. Clotheslines and CFLs (and even the simplest living) are not enough.
Trying to tell people that they can do "50 simple things to save the earth" is just a distraction, a way to make people feel guilty instead of angry. Angry that there is a mass of plastic garbage the size of Africa floating in the Pacific; that human breast milk is tainted with dioxin; that plastics in the ocean outweigh phytoplankton by 10:1; that 200 species become extinct each day; that are bodies are full of toxic waste; for global deforestation - for so many reasons, we should be outraged.
It is greed run amok that is the problem, and it can and should be stopped.
ApatheticNoMore
4-8-14, 3:05pm
Derick Jenson is a bit of a poser though. Does he live what he preaches either?
Is anger any better than guilt by the way, without strategy?
Consumption may be part of the puzzle, but re-using baggies and riding a bike is not going to change the world. This is a game that industry plays to try and make citizens feel like they are the problem. It is not us, as individuals, who are the problem; it is government bureaucrats funded by industry, and industry itself that is to blame.
Which is not to say we can maintain our current lifestyles and stop the destruction of the earth. But the entire culture has to change - car culture, globalization, "defense", technology. Clotheslines and CFLs (and even the simplest living) are not enough.
Trying to tell people that they can do "50 simple things to save the earth" is just a distraction, a way to make people feel guilty instead of angry. Angry that there is a mass of plastic garbage the size of Africa floating in the Pacific; that human breast milk is tainted with dioxin; that plastics in the ocean outweigh phytoplankton by 10:1; that 200 species become extinct each day; that are bodies are full of toxic waste; for global deforestation - for so many reasons, we should be outraged.
It is greed run amok that is the problem, and it can and should be stopped.
I agree--I'm not saying you and I can change the world by washing out zip locks (or not using them at all). Working to enforce the Clean Air and Clean Water act and holding people accountable for their actions would go a lot further. But the basic paradigm shift has to occur that more is not better, and that economic growth is not the only important measure of national well-being.
The big problem is, whenever you suggest a change, the retort is bound to be "what's in it for me." That's the hard part.
Gardenarian
4-8-14, 3:28pm
Derick Jenson is a bit of a poser though. Does he live what he preaches either?
Is anger any better than guilt by the way, without strategy?
He preaches change, by any means necessary. He is one of the founders of Deep Green Resistance. (http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/) I don't think he in any sense a poser.
And he has a strategy, it's called Decisive Ecological Warfare (outlined in the book Deep Green Resistance (http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/deep-green-resistance-book).)
The more I read and think about global warming, the more I oscillate between despair, and, well, worse despair. I regard it as axiomatic that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible and that some kind of steady-state economy is the only answer (unless someone perfects a totally clean, cheap energy source tomorrow).
The problem is, there's not a scintilla of a hint that anyone is willing to do what's clearly needed: a program of carbon reduction, accompanied by a steady population decrease, that exceeds WWII mobilization in urgency. The solution must be political--as several people here have observed, individual efforts just won't cut it, and are often a distraction from the worst culprits. Unfortunately, "If elected, I'll confiscate your car, severely ration meat, and tell you how big your house and family can be" isn't a winning political platform. So politicians will continue to make pious noises while doing nothing.
I fear that the inhabitants of rich countries will never consent to dramatically lowering their standard of living, and inhabitants of poor countries will never stop wanting the same standard of living as rich countries. Those two facts mean a bleak future for coming generations. There are too many people on the planet, and Mother Nature is going to right the balance. Sadly, it looks like that correction will take the form of famine, war and disease. And those who survive will end up living on a superheated planet anyway.
Somebody please convince me I'm wrong.
oldhat, unfortunately I agree with you.
Gardenarian, thank you for the link to Derrick Jensen.. I had heard of him, but hadn't read him.
Here he is in an article that pretty much said just what you said about the ineffectiveness of just living simply as a cure for our problems: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08
There's another form of "steady-state" no one is mentioning - boom and bust. There's a number of species that do that - population explodes, population crashes, but it's a system that continues. It's how an "infinite growth" model corrects itself. Maybe this is the only way a global economy can function? I don't know. We've never had one before. But I know you can't grow forever. And our current economic system reacts badly to no growth. And even "optimal" growth is still growing forever.
I think eventually the whole system is going to fall on its face. Global economic collapse followed by famines, wars, etc. And we'd take a big bite out of the population problem in a relatively short number of years, not that it will be in any way pleasant for anyone.
Yeah, I agree that no one is voluntarily going to work to change the status quo, because they can't envision the alternative. So we're left with the consequences of our own short-sightedness and lack of imagination--protecting something that doesn't even exist.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.