Bill wrote:
> Although Joe is clearly inclined to debate the issue, some
I wasn't trying to start a debate. I was just answering Kelly's question. As
one of the original promoters of the proposed ESA statement, I wanted to
clarify what we meant by "economic growth" and why we see it as a problem.
(The drafters of the Board's proposed statement either completely disagreed or
missed the point - we can't tell because none of us were invited to
participate).
> 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.
"Better quality of life" doesn't necessarily mean "economic growth". And we
are all well-aware of the "value added" arguments, but can you grow an entire
economy on, for example, more efficient computer programs? Such efficiencies
are usually connected to some actual physical process, like manufacturing and
shipping goods. And more efficient technology tends to lead to more
consumption, not less (Jevon's paradox).
My main point is that these things have to be examined closely, because the
mainstream neoclassical economists have done a poor and very biased job of
making their case, as pointed out by ecological economists and other
"alternative" economists (e.g. the "Post-Autistic Economics" movement).
By the way, you mentioned Hong Kong and Singapore. What is the ecological
footprint of those two dense, hi-tech masses of humanity?
