If economic growth implies population growth then Joe is right, economic
growth is bad. More people mean more resource consumption. But a stable
population with a better quality of life does not necessarily mean more
resources are needed. Better use of available resources coupled with value
added by human intelligence can spur economic growth without producing more
material goods.
Although Joe is clearly inclined to debate the issue, some places have
achieved high levels of economic growth without comparable resource
consumption by taking advantage of good education and financial innovation,
notably Hong Kong and Singapore. Increased wealth can actually lead to
reduced consumption of raw materials, since environmentally friendly
products tend to be expensive - a new Prius costs more than a battered old
gas-guzzling pickup truck.
There are other practical factors that come into play. I have seen reports
indicating that individual wealth and family size tend to be inversely
correlated, and poor families tend to have more children. Furthermore a lack
of educational opportunities means that when the children grow up they are
more likely to need work in areas which consume resources (farming, mining,
etc.) while well-educated children can become programmers, bankers, or - g*d
forbid! - scientists.
This is not to say that long-term continued economic growth is possible or
desirable, but I think that there is considerable scope for expansion of the
world economy which would benefit many people without greater consumption of
natural resources.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph gathman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:21 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on
sustainable growth)
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
