Hi Ronnie, Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I teach about the history of the limits to growth debate in several of my classes and find that there's been a major upswing in attention to the topic in recent years. It seems to be partially due to changing attitudes about climate change and partly due to fears created by the recent economic recession. Generally, my students respond to the limits argument (whether they read it in the Meadows et al. original or in more recent books like Jackson's economics for a crowded planet) much the same way that bloggers, pundits, and even academics do; some accept that there are limits and want to find ways to live within them, some accept that there are limits and take a fatalistic view that we can never live within them, and some reject the possibility of limits all together, putting their faith technological progress. Their positions tend to be quite fixed, no matter what evidence is put before them. Therefore, I try to take them beyond the limits argument by focusing on a deeper understanding of the tradeoffs that we make today and the potential impacts of those decisions in the future. To do this we delve into the positive and negative effects of population growth, economic growth, and technology--understanding all of these elements of environmental impact as "double-edged swords" that affect the resilience of the current system. This usually helps to open up debate and gets some of them thinking in realistic terms rather than entrenched positions.
My guess is that broader discussions among people with these viewpoints will come into vogue periodically whenever we feel either temporary or structural limits to growth. My hope is that these debates will push people to look more closely at the system and their current choices. In regards to the link you posted, I'd say that Jackson's book does an excellent job delving into many of the issues (see his TED talk for a nice synopsis http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html), though like so many of these works it falls short on solutions, largely because no one solution exists. The other piece referenced, Growth isn't possible, is clearly aimed at provoking discourse on limits rather than providing any deep understanding. As such, it may, like Meadows et al. (1972), end up creating more controversy than constructive debate. I'd be very interested to here others' thoughts on these works and the limits to growth issue generally. Best, dgwebster On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Ronnie Lipschutz <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All: > > I was alerted to a discussion about "limits to growth" and "no-growth" in > the UK, at > http://politicalclimate.net/2011/03/21/the-limits-to-environmentalism-%E2%80%93-part-3/ > > I don't know whether such things are going on in the US and, if not, it > might be worth launching such a debate. > > For you already in the UK, or aware of this, please pardon the hectoring. > > All the best, > > Ronnie > > -- > Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, 234 Crown College > > UC-Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA > Phone: (831) 459-3275; Email: [email protected]; > Web: http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch > > “All down history nine-tenths of mankind have been grinding corn for the > remaining tenth and have been paid with husks and bidden to thank god they > had the husks.” ---David Lloyd George--- > > -- D.G. Webster Assistant Professor Environmental Studies Program Dartmouth College 6182 Steele Hall Hanover, NH 03755 phone: 603-646-0213 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~envs/faculty/webster.html
