I certainly agree with Bill Silvert that population pressures have led nations and ethnic groups into civil strife and even war. I also agree that some human populations have risen exponentially until breaching the environmental capacity to support them. However, if Bill is suggesting that Homo sapiens is an r-selected species, and that therefore policy solutions are futile, I tend to disagree. After all, in most respects Homo sapiens displays the classic characteristics of K-selected species, morphologically, physiologically, and ethologically. Homo sapiens is a large-bodied vertebrate of late maturation, long gestation, generalist diet, relatively low reproductive rates, and massive quantities of parental care. (K-selected species do sometimes breach carrying capacity, though.)
More importantly, humans have the capability to modify their social institutions and to plan. Which brings us to Bills lament about a shortage of practical solutions on how to do this [including the establishment of a steady state economy with stabilized population and per capita consumption]. Perhaps this is partly semantics, but I dont think there is any shortage whatsoever. In fact, I think the problem is that there are too many solutions allocated among too few solvers. We should be the solvers: Wall Street and the American Enterprise Institute wont be helping us out any time soon. We can summarize the most policy-relevant solutions easily, beginning with what I think is the clear #1 and the necessary condition for remaining solutions or approaches. That would be replacing the national goal of economic growth increasing production and consumption of goods and services, facilitated by increasing populations and per capita consumption - a goal that served H. sapiens well for several decades to the newer national goal of a steady state economy, the only sustainable macroeconomic policy goal among the 3 basic alternatives (growth, steady state, and recession). Once the goal is set correctly, then we can talk about the optimal size of that steady state and the policy tools to attain it. Optimal size gets worked out in a capitalist democracy both in the market and the voting booth, and then in government (not likely in firms) - no politburo required when the democratic rider is strong enough for the capitalist horse. Policy tools are almost a no-brainer, for many of them are the same as the current fiscal, monetary, and trade policies we currently employ for a different (growing) rate than steady state. Your basic IS-LM model in a macroeconomic textbook will tell you in a nutshell about the solutions, in terms of policy levers. But I dont mean to make light of Bills message. The fact is there is a marathons worth of political hurdles to get over on the way to establishing the sustainable policy goal and setting the economic levers accordingly. I really do believe hurdle # 1 is for the professional natural resources societies to develop solidarity on this issue of whether or not there is a conflict between economic growth thats increasing production and consumption of goods and services - and environmental protection. Until we do that, we should expect Wall Street et al. to run roughshod over us in the policy arena. 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] -- William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This exchange prompts me to raise an issue which has been bothering me for a long time. We keep seeing postings on this list about the need to stop population growth, restrict economic growth, reach a steady state economy and so on, but there seems to be a shortage of practical solutions on how to do this. We need both to look at the causes of these problems and at realistic solutions, but first we need to see whether in fact we are setting possible goals. We know some of the driving forces for the expansion of human impact. For example, poverty promotes population growth, since poor people (at least in rural communities) need lots of children to do work to support the family. Do we have any quick fixes for poverty? Improved medical care also contributes to population growth, but who is willing to oppose it? Butg it is also important to ask whether we can actually hope to stabilise our social system and achieve the steady state economy that Brian Czech promotes. During the past few decades there has been a growing realisation that not all systems have a stable equilibrium, and this realisation is perhaps Buzz Holling's most important contribution to ecology and to science in general. One of the earlier projects carried out by Holling's group was a study of the spruce budworm infestations in New Brunswick, which followed a pattern of sever infestation followed by collapse of the budworm population, recovery of the spruce, and eventual repetition of the cycle. A more familiar example is the cycle of forest fires which clear out combustible brush, followed by years of recovery, accumulation of dead wood and brush, and then another fire. We have seen that attempts to control this cycle and stabilise it without fire often prove disastrous. Human populations often follow a similar type of cycle. The population builds up to an excessive level, which leads to conflict, war, and high mortality. Rwanda was one of the most densely populated countries on earth when civil war broke out. Sudan is overpopulated, given its limited resources and drought. Population pressure is a factor in many if not most major conflicts in human history. So how are we going to break this cycle? We at least have to recognise that it exists. When the first report to the Club of Rome, "The Limits of Growth", came out I attended several seminars on it, and although some of the scenarios involved very high levels of population density, whenever I suggested that this could lead to armed conflict the idea was rejected with horror -- whatever might happen, war was out of the question. And of course 90 years ago we had the war to end all wars. Have we learned anything about human ecosystems in the past 90 years? Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashwani Vasishth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 9:57 PM Subject: Re: George Monbiot on Biofuels > At 05:34 PM +0000 4/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Ashwani says (and ascribing to Ernie), "conservation alone would allow >>us to grow into the foreseeable future (say, 50 years), without ANY >>increase being needed in energy production." I disagree. By >>definition, conservation is not growth, but rather maintenance of >>natural capital stocks. >> > I agree. The term conservation probably better applies to the steady > state economy position than to what I have in mind--Holling's shifting > domains of equilibrium.
