Andrew says, "The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of where we want to be."
And Maiken says, "But to me predictions of extremely gloomy futures seem to be counter-productive to stimulate productive changes." So how about if we all try to envision a future that is both bright and feasible? I'm willing to try to do my part in starting this process (warning, this is pretty long, and it's aimed primarily at the U.S. situation): First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and optimized world wide. One in which wealth and amenities are fairly distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities. Where economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean and sustainable industry. And less than half of the worlds population lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population. Second, each and every future community is served by a passenger transport service such as a rail or bus line. All city and town neighborhoods have walking distance access to parks, schools, libraries, places of worship and small shopping centers. All city and town neighborhoods are interlaced and connected by walking and bicycle paths as well as roads. Long haul freight moves primarily by rail and water. Even in what we is now the first world, what we call alternative transportation has become preferred transportation and freeways are becoming an anachronism. Third, each and every community has its own public school, public parks, places of worship and full-service, locally-owned businesses. Each community has its own medical and dental service center or clinic. This means area residents can take care of all their ordinary needs and wants without leaving their own community: they can shop locally for groceries, clothing, hardware, building supplies and farm equipment; they can obtain routine medical, dental and veterinary care; they can attend the worship center of their choice; they can check books or DVDs out of a well-stocked local library; they can bank locally; and they can read a local newspaper, listen to local news on the radio, watch regional news on TV, and get meaningful news via computer. Fourth, I would see distinct town and urban boundaries with little or no urban sprawl. Rural small acreage home sites are primarily found in clusters on land that has low value for agriculture, forests, wildlife or recreation. And these rural small acreage home developments pay full cost for infrastructure services such as roads, utilities, mail and parcel delivery, police and fire protection and school transportation. This does not mean that we are not honoring and supporting our farming families, but it does mean that the rest of us are not subsidizing non farmers who choose to live in a rural setting. Fifth, large numbers of food-producing family-owned farms are close enough to population centers to provide easy and cost-efficient commercial interaction. These farms provide products that can be bought in urban stores as well as in farmers markets and at farm site stands. Also, a large part of the grocery products sold in even the biggest cities are grown and processed within the region. A family can eat well year-round without ever buying a product grown outside the region. Sixth, high quality wildland recreation is available within 2 hours travel of everyones home recreation such as hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, bird watching and boating. Nearly all ocean beaches, rivers, lakes and streams are available and open to public access, use and enjoyment. Seventh, all of our children complete high school fully educated and qualified for college, technical training, apprenticeship programs, gainful and rewarding employment, or are otherwise achieving a successful and satisfying life. School success is evaluated on the basis of the success of its graduates. Eighth, affordable and complete medical care (including psychiatric, dental and optical) is fully available to all. Persons who are physically or mentally unable to earn a decent income are fully supported and comfortable, served by programs designed to make them as useful and productive as possible. Antisocial behavior is treated with a goal of rehabilitation, not punishment. Ninth, all forest, range and other wildlands provide a healthy and sustainable mix of extractive, recreational and esthetic resources and values. Forest products are processed within the region so as to provide meaningful employment in the woods, in the mills and in wood products factories. No raw materials or unprocessed resources are exported out of the region; rather all such resources are turned into manufactured products before being exported. There is a sound balance between productive lands and those lands managed and preserved for other values. For example, about half of the worlds forest lands are devoted to intensive but diverse silviculture, and about half are left primarily for maintaining other values such as biodiversity and scenery. Tenth, even urban and suburban areas are nature-friendly. Interconnected habitat supports a diversity of native wildlife and plant communities. Urban stream corridors are lush with native growth and the streams support healthy populations of native fish. Backyards and schoolyards and institutional properties provide places to enjoy a quiet visit with nature. Eleventh, our air is clean. Granted, this condition can only be met if the whole world effectively controls air pollution. But the first world economies can at least boast that their output of greenhouse gases and other atmospheric pollutants is being reduced and stabilized to levels near those that existed prior to civilization. Twelfth, like the air, water remains a publicly owned resource. All of our streams and lakes provide water that is clean enough to support a healthy range of native species. Ground water and surface water is being equitably distributed without diminishment to support farms, homes and industries. Dams no longer present an impediment to fish migration. Native fish populations are self-sustaining and productive, supporting a healthily diverse biotic system as well as recreation and an important commercial harvest. Ocean resources are being sustained providing for stable and productive marine ecosystems as well as supporting a stable and important level of recreational and commercial utilization. Am I unrealistic? I challenge you to offer something even better, more complete and achievable. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] (email) -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Park Sent: Thursday, 05 April, 2007 16:05 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution Re: economic growth versus steady state, There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be (Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you will). The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of where we want to be. I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will give us steady state. Its not their fault though. The problem is that we all have a vested interest in seeing growth continue. Yes folks, growth is not just a sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists. Surpluses generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and other infrastructure of civilization. Growht is what pays for your pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your investments so that you can retire. Growht is what pays for foreign aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated GDPs. And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the multiplier effect. Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me), due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of consumer and other spending. Thus the net effect of spending an additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy (positive feedback?). Unfortunately, it can work in reverse. If you choose not to buy that one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal. A positive feedback with very negative consequences :( So how do we get off this treadmill. Beats me...... Andy
