Kelly Stettner wrote:
> Why does growth have to be viewed as "bad"?
Kelly - since you asked, here's why the original proposers targeted economic
growth as the problem (as I have understood it):
1. "Economic growth", as commonly used, means that every year the human species
creates more "economic activity" than the year before (fueled by growth in both
population and per-capita consumption).
2. "Economic activity" inevitably involves consumption of resources, so that
means every year we convert more land to human use, generate more electricity,
cut more trees, mine more minerals and fuels, manufacture more goods, produce
more pollution, catch more fish, etc. So clearly there has to be a limit at
some point.
Economists and politicians claim that some economic growth doesn't involve
consumption. This may be true, but the examples they give are debatable, and
they still can't show how the entire economy can grow without growth in
resource consumption. So far all we have is big claims and hopeful words. The
neoclassical-economic world even gave us Julian Simon and others who denied the
existence of ANY limits to natural resources. This is not a crowd in which I
can have any confidence.
Just my humble opinion,
Joe
