Jeff hit the nail on the head. We who suggest the steady state economy as a policy goal are neither calling for absolute stasis nor naïve enough to think such a state may exist on earth. We are talking about an equilibrating population and per capita consumption that, ceteris paribus, would be generally indicated by equilibrating GDP (ideally around the optimum (which we have probably already exceeded in the U.S.)). And all in the context of non-material cultural dynamics.
Someone else asked what a steady state economy would look like, what kinds of institutions it would entail and so forth. I dont believe anyone has written a comprehensive conjecture on that, but myself and Herman Daly attempted to concisely answer some of the most commonly asked questions here: http://www.steadystate.org/files/SSE.pdf Also, The Wildlife Society will be hosting a symposium at its annual conference this year on What is a Steady State Economy? or something to that effect. This issue is such an important topic for the future of wildlife conservation that there is even a Working Group for the Steady State Economy in TWS. (The symposium is being hosted by the working group.) I think its been a good thread of late and it is encouraging to hear of the interest in the ESA about macroeconomic policy issues. A lot of what we care about as ecologists and citizens cannot withstand the forces of economic growth, and it seems defeatist and illogical to think we can do nothing about the policy goal of economic growth. My apologies if I posted this once before but here is part of a general strategy to unify the ecological professions on this issue, with sound science, such that the environmental community may have a solid foundation to stand upon as they take this up with memberships and then policy makers: http://www.steadystate.org/Foundation-of-a-New-Conservation-Movement.pdf 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] -- Jeff Houlahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ashwani and all, I think the critical point that Brian and Herman and others like them make is that, while it may be difficult to manage an economy to achieve steady-state, it is almost certainly impossible to do when the reigning paradigm is that growth is good. When every policy or economic decision is aimed at growing the GNP/GDP it is very unlikely that we will achieve a steady state. I think to suggest that steady-state economy implies 'staying put' creates a straw man - yes, as individuals, communities, a species we are inevitably going to change over time. Steady state implies (I believe, in the context we are talking here) zero-growth. That doesn't mean 'no change'. Best. Jeff Houlahan -----Original Message----- From: Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:58:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution At 12:21 AM +0000 4/3/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > - no politburo required when the democratic rider is strong enough for the >capitalist horse. > Respectfully , Brian, that's a rather substantial caveat to slip in to the conversation. All evidence that I see from tracking everyday politics and policy shows me that democracy is steadily losing out to corporate capitalism--every where. Not only does it no longer matter that people should get what they want, people often don't know what they should want. (And even when they know what they want and do get it, it turns out to be connected to all sorts of things that they definitely don't want.) Then what is to be done? But more importantly, show me the mechanism that would keep any economy at an actual "steady state." It seems to me that we currently expend huge amounts of effort in attempting to "keep the economy on an even keel," but even there, we fail more often than not. The idea that we can stay put, in any fashion, seems to me completely an unnatural state of affairs, except if it is taken metaphorically. (And then it does very little for us, near as I can tell.) I like Daly et al., and agree with them about the need to manage for a different set of objectives than physical or morphological growth. I buy the quite meaningful distinction between growth and development. But the root reason(s) that an ecosystem approach is imperative to the management of life is because the world is a dynamical place that, further, can not be singularly defined. Show me what specific steps we could take--both as individuals and as groups (ontogeny and phylogeny both have standing in this, yes?)--to get away from growth and toward a steady state? I don't doubt in the least that there are a host of policies that would move us toward development and away from growth (adopting Cobb et al.s' Genuine Progress Indicators is only one example), but how does one stay put, in life, without first needing to deny both complexity and evolution? By the way, a wonderful history of the idea of equilibrium in US social science is: Russett, Cynthia E. 1966. The Concept of Equilibrium in American Social Thought. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. And on the idea of evolutionary progress, see: Nitecki, Matthew H. (ed.). 1988. Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
