I have had good luck with students in the limits to growth argument by analyzing what parts of the 1970's analysis still seem robust, which do not, which are more debatable, and what alarming or significant things they may have missed. I start with examples of scientific arguments of other kinds that have been demonstrably wrong in the past, as well as with examples of failures to take alarming predictions seriously that have led to unfortunate results. I include convictions of my own that have proven right or wrong over time. All of this has the effect, at least somewhat, of opening up the discussion beyond ideological presuppositions and fiercely defended ramparts. One can talk about how arguments about future events get it right and how they can get it wrong.
Once you have entered the territory of the character and quality of arguments and evidence, you can start examining each of the arguments with regard to limits within this kind of framework. I think this moves a few people out of entrenched positions of denial, and, perhaps, just as important, leads those who are more open to the idea of limits to a much stronger understanding of the arguments, their strengths and weaknesses, and their importance. In more formal terms, one can simply think of this as teaching critical thinking skills rather than the substantive material, but with the result that it allows people to look at the substantive material with new eyes, and not so defensively. Very homey examples sometimes help loosen things up, as in, "can you think of things a friend or someone in your family predicted would go wrong? Were they right or wrong? Why?" Even if the examples are not very appropriate, sometimes especially if they are not very appropriate, it can serve to open things up. Hope this is helpful to someone. Angus Wright Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies California State University, Sacramento ________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of DG Webster [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:12 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [gep-ed] Interesting discussion 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]<mailto:[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<tel:%28831%29%20459-3275>; Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Web: http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch<http://people.ucsc.edu/%7Erlipsch> “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
