I believe that the collapse is the key. There is no problem with steady state: the problem is getting there. See: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEAboutUs.html
Growth generates huge wealth for those whose livelihood feeds off it, and there is a ripple effect - we all benefit. But it is ruinous in time, and that time is now. Besides, the end of cheap oil dictates shrinkage in the economy, as is seems highly unlikely that alternatives can match the HUGE amount of fossil fuel energy we now use. Note that the New Scientist says "unpalatable" collapse, not catastrophic. If we plan it, we should be able to manage it. But population must shrink as well - worldwide. That is a *lot* to accomplish.... Tom Giesen On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Andrew Park <[email protected]>wrote: > The New Scientist Editorial that (re) initiated this Discussion thread had > the following to say about growth: > > "This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow > continuously or face an unpalatable collapse." > > This facet of our economy has always been a bit of a mystery to me. You are > either forever growing; otherwise you face collapse. In the current system > (which we may characterize as socialist / capitalist after the bail out of > money losing and still doomed companies), it seems "steady state" cannot > work. > > It seems to me that this aspect of the economy is the Achilles heel of any > attempt to mitigate carbon emissions, manage fisheries effectively, or > achieve any number of other desirable ecological outcomes. Tony Blair said > it best when he stated that "there is a mismatch in timing between the > environmental and electoral impact". In simple terms, a politician (even > Obama) will always choose to grow now and pay later. The penalty for not > doing so is collapse. > > But these sad facts beg some serious questions that I have been trying to > answer in vain. Maybe you , dear Ecologgers, can offer some answers: > > 1. Why does the globalized economy have to grow or collapse; that is, what > are the mechanics that dictate it. > > 2. What would happen if the global economy grew at, say, 0.5 percent for > 1, 5, 10, or 20 years? > > 3. is there a way to get to a steady state economy from where we are? > That is can we decouple social and political stability from growth? > > I have some thoughts on this that involve the economic multiplier effect, > which is a positive feedback that reinforces the effects of adding or > subtracting money form the economy. But surely it has to be more complex > than that? > > Interestingly, I have been exploring the economic literature (I know, I > know, it's horrific, but someone has to do it!). Turns out that economists > may know a good deal less about economic growht than one might have > imagined. Not so surprisingly, the literature appears to concentrate on > understanding the drivers of growth or how to achieve more of it. I have > searched in vain for literature describing in detail the consequences of > failing to grow..... > > Ciaou, > > Andy Park > -- Tom Giesen 629 NW 29th St. Corvallis, OR 97330 (541) 554-4162
