Just a quick addendum to some of the economic barriers to moving away from the growth paradigm (I hate to use the 'p' word, but if it has ever been appropriate it is appropriate in this context). I believe that one large barrier to moving towards a steady-state economy is that it means a dramatic shift in ethical beliefs. In a growth economy one can be a rich consumer and an ethical, moral person, because the wealth that you are creating (and spending) is creating wealth for everybody - you are making a contribution to the growing pie. In short, you can be rich and go to heaven. A steady-state economy implies a pie of constant size - that means thet every additional steak you eat is food someone else doesn't get, every additional mile you drive is a mile somebody else has to walk. In a steady-state economy every act of consumption is, explicitly, a moral and ethical decision. In short, put down your fork or you're going to hell. In my opinion, that fundamental philos! ophical shift has to be made before we will see a change in policies...and that seems like a large barrier. Best.
Jeff Houlahan -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:05:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution Re: economic growth versus steady state, There is a big problem with getting from where we are (catastrophic EXPONENTIAL economic growth) to where some of us would like to be (Steady state, dynamic flux around some mean value, call it what you will). The problem is that there is nobody anywhere in the world who can envision a practical, politically feasible, and equitable version of where we want to be. I have read Daly and others on this subject, adn their major weakness always revolves around the policies that will give us steady state. Its not their fault though. The problem is that we all have a vested interest in seeing growth continue. Yes folks, growth is not just a sop for politicians and the opiate of uber capitalists. Surpluses generated by growth are what pays for roads, social services, and other infrastructure of civilization. Growht is what pays for your pension (if you have one) and it provides dividends on your investments so that you can retire. Growht is what pays for foreign aid, even though that is only a pitifully small part of our bloated GDPs. And of course the alternative to growth is stagnation courtesy of the multiplier effect. Loosely speaking (economists, please correct me), due to the fact that money circulates in the economy, an additional dollar of investment translates into several additional dollars of consumer and other spending. Thus the net effect of spending an additional dollar is disproportionately translated through the economy (positive feedback?). Unfortunately, it can work in reverse. If you choose not to buy that one dollar pack of gum (or that shiny new SUV or a cell phone or a second helping of dessert for that matter), the effect of money withdrawn from the economy can ripple through it, reducing aggregate demand disproportionately to the original withdrawal. A positive feedback with very negative consequences :( So how do we get off this treadmill. Beats me...... Andy
