Fellow ESA members, I have been watching ECOLOG with great interest. Two things are especially noteworthy. First, with regard to the prospects for an ESA position on economic growth, the recent thread on consumption is enlightening. Not too long ago, there was a similarly well-developed thread about population growth. So now weve seen the twin forces of economic growth population and consumption both addressed with great enthusiasm on ECOLOG.
But that brings me to the second interesting development: The "troll" (as a subsequent participant pegged him) quite quickly and almost completely derailed the thread on consumption, which was veering more toward economic growth and macroeconomic policy. Who knows if the fella was just a poor devils advocate or a professional monkey-wrencher, but he may have set a record for quickness of dispatch. Those of us who will be seeking the development of a position on economic growth by the ESA should keep the "trolls" in mind, regardless of whether or not we were truly visited by one in this case. Ive been studying and advocating the steady state economy for over 10 years now, and have I ever seen my share of them. Im saving most of the stories for the book Im writing, but they are DEFINITELY in these professional societies, just as they are in political parties. What Id like to refocus on here instead is offering an opinion on the consumption discussion. The basic question was how to become economic with our time and efforts toward sustainability. No matter how much we recycle, ride our bikes to work, and take public transportation, its akin to shutting the bathroom lights off at a Las Vegas casino. The Vegas casino, in this case, is macroeconomic policy (fiscal, monetary, and trade policy) in which the levers are set at 3% or 3.2% or even higher GDP growth. Interest rates, money supplies, tax codes, federal budgets, fractional reserve requirements... good luck to us, curbing consumption, with the juggernaut up the hill. So I submit that we should continue to ride our bikes to work and such, but not waste much time talking about it. Rather, we need to be uniting with the other professional natural resources societies that are taking or considering positions on economic growth that refute the rhetoric that "there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection." For some years these position statements will make no difference in the macroeconomic policy arena, but as the positions do their work to educate publics and policy makers, the policy levers will be less monopolized by growth interests and more conducive to adjustment for the sake of reducing consumption in a real, significant manner. If anyone would like more information on this approach to the consumption problem, shoot me an email. Otherwise, there is more information at the Action page of www.steadystate.org. Cheers, Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "James J. Roper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe it was David Ehrenfeld who wrote and essay - "Why put value on biodiversity" and the gist is that if we put monetary value on things, that value will fluctuate with the market and economics. Thus, no permanence in conservation (well, relative permanence - there is no permanence in a changing universe). So, we need to get away from "value" and just conserve= . Jim On 3/22/07, Wendee Holtcamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was thinking about this, and in my opinion, the "things" we all want to > "save" (polar bears, rainforest, amphibians etc) are all on a marketplace > so > to speak, and are in competition with one another as to what gets the mos= t > attention. > > We may "pay more" as a society to save cute cuddly polar bears than they > are > "worth" in the grand scheme of relative importance of things, because > without a doubt even people who are not environmentalists per se love > wildlife and animals (I think there are some studies on this - I know one > mag, I think Smithsonian, said their sales go way up when they put a cute > animal on the cover). Every organization out there has to compete for > money > and the public's attention. Right now global warming has (finally) gotten > the attention it deserves in the mainstream. It's reached the tipping > point > in terms of attention and people are paying attention who could dismiss i= t > before. > > The question is, how do "We Who Care About the Environment" make sure tha= t > our societal group effort and money is expended on the decisions that wil= l > TRULY make the most difference in terms of turning the planet into a plac= e > we truly want for future generations. First we have to know which > decisions > are the most important (why I like that book about Effective Consumer > Choices), then we have to know how to harness that energy and effort to > educating others about the relative importance of those things so everyon= e > is not just going in a million directions. This is where solid leadership > comes in. > > When I say wildlife are of less relative importance, I mean each > individual > species "Save the whales" type thing. This has shifted to "save > ecosystems" > over the past 30 years I think, and I also want to add that wildlife can > be > an entry-drug (so to speak) to those less ecologically/environmentally > minded, and so their importance in the "economics" of ideas may be worth > more than ecologically each individual species may be. > > Anyway just some thoughts. > Wendee > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology > Freelance Writer-Photographer > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com > Bohemian Adventures Blog > > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > CRIKEY! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stan moore > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:25 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Absolute Addiction to Catastrophic Consumption > > Folks -- > > It seems like every day, week, or month I see in the mainstream press > another matter-of-factly presented alert that a species, an ecosystem, a > critical planetary cycle is out of whack, with likely devastating > consequences, often sooner rather than later. > > Polar bears, sage grouse, the North Banks fishery, the western Pacific, > major river systems, major aquifers, rain forests, ocean levels rising, > desertification, carbon dioxide/global warming, glaciers melting; and the > list grows and grows over time with the pace of new alarms itself > increasing > > alarmingly. > > And the consuming public is told by their government that the solution to > "terrorism" is to go shopping. More ways to shop are devised through > electronic and cyber-media and advertising. > The Shopping Channel on television is supplanted by EBay and Craigslist. > People tune out the drone of warnings of ecological catastrophe, but focu= s > intently on businesses handing out free products and services to bring in > yet more paying customers. > > We are a world of catastrophic consumption, with the lines totally blurre= d > between wants and needs. Human survival is increasingly being put at ris= k > by destructive consumption. Resource wars are killing many, many > thousands, > > with planning being laid by governments for yet more such wars. Terroris= m > is a buzz word for those who resist colonization and imperialism through > armed force, with the underlying impetus for these conflicts being > competition for increasingly scarce resources with petroleum far and away > at > > the top of the list of valued resources. Petroleum greases the pathway t= o > consumption, and consumption of petroleum itself is the underlying factor > for wars past, present and future. > > During World War II, Americans were asked to consume less of many consume= r > goods in order to allow for resources to be devoted to the war > effort. Now, > > Americans are asked to shop during wartime. The American economy drives > armaments production of high technology implements of war that are capabl= e > of killing countless citizens of other countries whose national needs are > in > > competiton with those of American citizens. So we shop and kill and kill > and shop and it is all one endless destructive cycle, as interlinked as > any > ecological system's components. > > We are used to killing our competitors. Ranchers kill ground squirrels > and > prairie dogs that compete for grass. We kill coyotes and wolves that > compete for our livestock. We kill termites that compete for our finishe= d > lumber. In a world of increasing competition for resources, with a > still-growing human population and retaining the idiotic priority of yet > more economic growth, the killing will only continue and increase. > > Will we ever learn? I think we may be asking the wrong question. > > Can we ever learn as a species that an appropriate level of consumption i= s > the key to survival, but catastrophic consumption kills? And our > society/culture is as addicted to catastrophic consumption as a junkie is > to > > heroin. The junkie often harms only himself, but we are harming > biodiversity, ecosystems, planetary cycles and processes, and our unborn > children. > > > Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > It's tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips > > http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTip= s.a > spx?icid=3DHMMartagline > --=20 James J. Roper Depto Zoologia,UFPR Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 celular: 55 41 99870543 Casa: 55 41 33857249 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D http://jjroper.googlepages.com/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ ---
