I agree with Greg Davies and Phil Ganter on explicitly identifying population growth in any position on economic growth. The proposed position does that in the first paragraph: "Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. It requires increasing population and/or per capita production and consumption. It is indicated by measures of production, income, and expenditure, most notably gross domestic product (GDP)." This is the meaning of economic growth as the vast majority in the public and polity knows it - higher GDP, more housing starts, growing stock market, higher consumer spending, more "stuff" in the aggregate.
I also agree that any ESA position should not be derived out of sheer political fear, yet we can all empathize with Nadine and those who want to ensure that any ESA position is not politically reckless. Clearly there is a balance to be achieved. As applied to the question of how much emphasis should be explicitly placed on population growth, I propose the following logic: It should be crystal clear in any position on economic growth that the economy grows as a function of population and per capita production and consumption. But after that the phrase "population growth" should be used with caution - not abandoned but used with caution - because it has become saddled with heavy political baggage deriving from religious concerns and ethical concerns about immigration. Meanwhile the phrase "economic growth" has no such problem and is viewed as a purely secular concern. With a position statement we can raise enough awareness of the trade-off between economic growth and environmental security. This is not so problematic politically, especially in the days of climate change and Peak Oil, because of the secular nature of the subject matter. Yet during actual policy-making informed by such a position, population will come right out of the bag as one of the twin engines of problematic economic growth. This awareness will have subsequent effects on fiscal policy (e.g., the tax code). Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043 -- Phil Ganter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greg, Your criticism of the ESA's failure to speak out on the primacy of human population growth as a driver of global change is accurate. The problem began with the decision to emphasize sustainability that was made in the 1990's. In the document on sustainability, human population growth was acknowledged but not emphasized, which I considered an error at that time. Sustainability was often touted in the popular press as a means of transforming "bad" growth, growth that degraded the environment, into "good" growth, which would, at the least, not degrade the environment. I felt that, without an assessment of the human global K, we were simply using a fad to pry funding out of the government (an important conclusion in the document was the need for expanded research into sustainability). I felt, at that time, that many members of the society were of the opinion that the ESA could be more effective if it were not to emphasize hot-button political issues. The US Congress was evermore conservative and there was a bit of a save-what-you-can mentality operating. Sustainability would deflect the criticisms because it meant different things to different political factions and adopting it as our focus was, to some extent, a survival strategy in hard times. Global warming has fundamentally changed this. Accepting that it has an anthropogenic component means that K looms and fundamental questions about growth can now be asked. Your message should be the starting point for those considering preparing a statement to take to the members of ESA. There are, of course, many ecologists and even a few economists who have never lost their focus on human population growth but it is now time for the society to officially adopt the same focus. Phil Ganter Tennessee State U. On 1/18/08 5:16 AM, "Greg Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any statement on economic growth should EXPLICITLY refer to human > population and population growth in the SAME statement. > > FAILURE to mention the problem of human population growth as THE driver > of economic growth (as witnessed in the prolix, potential E.S.A. policy > statement circulated on this list the other day) will render the > statement otiose and near-useless. > > Your message itself reads somewhat like insipid bureaucratic waffle. > Surely, from fundamental ecological canons, the premise of exponential, > infinite (economic) growth against a base of finite resources is simply > impossible? What more scientifically and ecologically can there be left > to cogitate over in your multifarious committees? > > Can an outsider (i.e. non-ESA member) and amateur ecologist (i.e. > non-professional) such as myself possibly divine in your email that the > real reasons for E.S.A. foot-dragging on this important issue are > actually more of a political and sociological flavour, and the wish to > avoid "controversy"? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nadine Lymn > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re ESA and Economic Growth Statement > > Dear Ecologers, > > There have been several postings over the last months urging the > Ecological Society of America to consider issuing a position statement > on economic growth. In addition, a group of ecologists submitted a > request to the Governing Board in August, followed by additional letters > of interest supporting such a statement. > > The ESA Governing Board is taking this interest seriously and has asked > the Society's Public Affairs Committee to oversee the development of a > position statement for its consideration and review. > > This process is underway and there will be an opportunity for interested > members to offer feedback to the proposed statement. In addition, the > Public Affairs Office has been collecting the many letters that have > already come in offering views on this topic. > > As with all the Society's position statements, ESA takes very seriously > the task of producing documents that are carefully reviewed and > appropriately reflect the underlying science and the Ecological Society > of America. We will notify this list when a draft is available for > comment and appreciate the interest in this topic. > > Nadine Lymn > ESA Director of Public Affairs
