On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Sandwichman<[email protected]> wrote: > Sandwichman's reply to Gar (posted as comment at Grist), > > http://www.grist.org/article/growing-a-better-world/ > > Confusion arises between growth and waste because in the propaganda of the > consumption-driven profit system "Growth" is the brand name for waste. When > you call a ballastic missle "the Peacemaker" it is still a ballistic missle. > To differentiate between growth and waste would require a different > conception of economic growth than now prevails. In the currently prevailing > model, reducing the work week and increasing leisure is very explicitly NOT > growth. In the current model it is shrinkage. Opponents of growth oppose the > current model. They oppose the model that defines waste as growth.
But that makes redefining growth rather than conceding that waste is growth the better, and also the more radical alternative (in the sense of getting to the roots or fundamentals ). > Redefining growth requires more than some tweaking and tinkering. Humpty > Dumpty said that when he uses a word it means exactly what he wants it to > mean. It's no use arguing with Humpty Dumpty over what he wants the word > growth to mean. And it's rather pointless to blame the opponents of waste > for the confusion between waste and growth. But really that applies to the technical term GDP more than to the informal term "Growth". I think you will find that in popular usage "growth" is used as a synonym for a better life as it is as synonymn for GDP. Heck, when you talk about "Prosperity without growth" you are also redefining a term that often is used as synonym for GDP. If you are not conceding the word "prosperity" to the other side, then why concede the term "growth"? I think part of the reason is that the dispute is NOT just a sterile dispute over choice of terms. I think there is a real disagreement somewhere in there. I'm not 100% sure what it is. I don't think it is over the need for a radical transformation of the human created portion of our physical world. We need to modify our buildings, our factories, our transportation, our farms, and greatly reduce our interventions in forests and wilderness. I suspect that the dispute is not in the need for this radical transformation, but the nature of that transformation. I'm not sure exactly what that dispute is, but seems to be implicitly there. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
