The Steady-State Economy vs. "Growth"

[catherine]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[catherine]

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.

[bae]

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.

[catherine]

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.

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.

[bUU]

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.

[bae]

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_Evo...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...

[catherine]

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.

[bUU]

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.

[catherine]

Thanks for clarifying, bUU. I see your points.