Hi again,
Sure, growing populations demand that economies grow. Either that, or
the population will exist in a world of diminishing per capita
resources.
But wait! Many economies in Europe continue to grow even though their
population is stagnating. Further, they continue to be obsessed with
economic growth, and currently, the lack of it. Why? That is the
$700 billion question. The answer, which appears only to be dimly
perceived even by professional economists, lies in the nature of
modern (i.e. post 1820) economies. The economic multiplier, whereby a
dollar spent ends up generating more than a dollar in additional
revenue, can work in reverse. i.e a dollar not spent can cause more
than a dollar of deflation. Technology and productivity gains
produced by technology demand further gorwth in consumption.
These factors do not proviude a complete answer for why economies have
to grow or collapse, but the vast literature on economic growth
appears ot be silent on the subject. We can say, however, that
populatinon is only one factor in the growth conundrum.
My previous question had to do not with the incentives that lie behind
growth, but in the mechanics of growth that produce this catch 22 of
growth or collapse.
As to the question of cultural imperatives behind population growth,
here are two short stories.
[1] - I go into a bar in tanzania, and get engaged in the usual
conversation, why aren't you married; What, you have no children?".
"So, how many kids do you have", I ask the guy at the bar. "Ten".
"Wow, that's a lot of kids". "Yes, and I must have more". "But don't
they cost a lot to keep fed and clothed?" "Why yes, they do, but I
have ot have many children, becasue otherwise, how can I come here and
drink beer?" "Beer?!!" "Yes, when I come here to see my friends, how
could I hold up my head and drink beer without having may children".
[2] - I am in a pickup truck on a dirt road in Mexico. I engage the
lady passenger in conversation. "So, signora, are you married".
"Yes". "Kids?" "Yes, I have five." "Five, wow; that must be quite a
handfull?" "Oh no, I would like to have more?" "You'd like more; how
come?" "Why, to be more happy of course!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Best,
Andy
Quoting "Ganter, Philip" <[email protected]>:
To All,
The recent posts on a steady-state economy and economic growth have
lost focus on the ecological underpinnings of any macroeconomic
model. Even if one uses a model that postulates an infinite
universe of material resource (accomplished deus ex machina by
substitution and the genie of technology), one must still account
for population size. Steady-state economy is obviously not possible
without steady-state population size unless we are are willing to
condemn future generations to ever-sinking living standards. Andy
Park wonders why we have to grow. Population, population,
population. This is so without considering such evils as worldwide
income disparity (and consequent ecological footprint disparity),
which is a significant driver on growth. If you narrow your focus
on the US, which is reasonable given that the ESA is based in
America, and that the US has a monstrous per-capita footprint and a
growing population, one still has to account for growth (even if
migration is a driver on the growth rate) when promoting a shift to
a steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting human
population size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of
freedom, and our religious beliefs but that does not justify
ignoring the problem. The history of attempts to affect population
growth rate is full of successes, failures, and cautionary examples
of bureaucratic tyranny. We might find it easier to promote a
steady-state economy if we also recommended policies consistent with
our values that promoted a steady-state population size.
Phil Ganter
Biology Department
Tennessee State University
