Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Thinking the Unthinkable: Not Growing the Economy
At what point does economic growth become uneconomic growth?
Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate, the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It's totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology we depend on for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world's ecosystems.
For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that - financial crises aside - growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our well-being.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters - as it has done recently - politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries.
But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems we depend on for survival. It has failed spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people's livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil; the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices; the degradation of forests, lakes and soils; conflicts over land use, water quality and fishing rights; and the momentous challenge of stabilizing concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people's jobs - and creating new ones - is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task for policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
- Posted in
98 Comments so far
Show AllBasically a well written article as Tim Jackson explains that "Prosperity for the few ... is no foundation for a civilized society" as well as a "commitment and flourishing in a finite world." It would seem that Jackson is rightly pointing out that capitalism is a failed system. Yet despite this obvious reality Jackson has refrained from writing the one word that would be a counterpoint to capitalism and that is the word Marxism, a system that has never truly been attempted by any country in the way that Karl Marx had envisioned it. But with all the flaws that capitalism contains that one word seems to be anathema even among progressive web sites like Common Dreams. It would appear that to mention Marxism in an article would be, to borrow from Tim Jackson, to think the unthinkable.
By Marxism do you mean Soviet-style Communism?
q
Just what kind of economic freedom are you referring to? Different people define it differently.
Q
That is exactly what I do NOT mean. As I attempted to imply, the Soviet system of communism was a subterfuge that the rulers of the Soviet Union used as an excuse to promote their murderous and corrupt agenda. True Marxism has never been attempted anywhere in the world and that is probably because the ruling classes would not wish to see their wealth and power distributed among the masses.
Erroll, It is not clear to me that Marx subscribed to a particular form of government as much as he deconstructed known forms of government and opined an ideal or two.
q, the greatest disservice and perversion respecting Marx is the equating of Marx with Soviet-style Communism.
Marx was first and foremost a philosopher, and the business of philosophy is asking and understanding the questions rather than supposing the answers.
From Wikipedia, "Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
Marx realized how capitalism would tend towards communism, defined as follows:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."
The state of things to which he spoke was the inequity and struggle of the working class in a bourgeois controlled society - whereby the assumptions and realities of bourgeois society lead to the need for this change, as sought by the proletariat class.
That sounds to me a great deal like our current situation in this country, precisely what many on this forum recognize as "the" problem we face, and the solution we need.
Marx understood and discussed the dynamics of socio-economic change, which is indeed the very premise underlying the intent of this forum, and the concern expressed and discussed by so many here.
Seems to me capitalism gravitates towards better capitalism. Communism isn't practical, ask people in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union what they think of it, and they'll tell you in no uncertain terms they want nothing to do with it. And PLEASE don't tell me it has never been tried. Go experiment with it on Mars if you want, but leave the rest of us alone.
“True Marxism has never been attempted anywhere in the world and that is probably because the ruling classes would not wish to see their wealth and power distributed among the masses.” Erroll, the masses didn’t exactly ask the ruling classes if it’s OK with them if they try any form of communism - perfect or not. I’d say the ruling classes were lucky if they didn’t get executed.
The main reason why communism failed everywhere it has been attempted, is greed and selfishness - people simply wouldn’t work for the common good. You might also say that this is the reason why the “perfect form of Marxism” has never been tried. There is nothing wrong with the underlying principles of communism, just like there is nothing wrong with the underlying principle of Christianity - “love thy neighbor like yourself”.But unless you find a way to persuade people to be their brother’s keeper of their own accord, you’ll fail miserably in making the world a better place, no matter how good the system sounds in theory.
“This is an ignorant reactionary opinion, which however is entirely typical of brainwashed Americans.” Wow. You are not only rude and presumptuous, Rich M, but also, not particularly well informed. First of all, as a person, who lived in Eastern Europe through the final stages of communism there, I can tell you that you are mistaken in your opinion that the fall of communism was caused by the activities of the US. The US might have contributed somewhat, mainly in the form of anti-communist propaganda, but the main reason why communism fell in Eastern Europe and Russia was that it didn’t have the support of local populations.
There were several reasons why people rejected communism. Some had to do with the lack of political, economic and to some extent, personal freedom. Another reason was relative poverty, especially when contrasted with the apparent prosperity of the Western countries.
I had to come to the US to find out that the aforementioned apparent prosperity is indeed only apparent - enjoyed by some, though unfortunately not by the majority of the population. Furthermore the conditions that some people live in are far from being enviable. What we saw from there were nice houses, cars, schools, clothes, fully equipped hospitals - that was of course on TV in American movies, like “Dynasty”. What we didn’t see was poverty, drugs, lack of healthcare, racism, inequality, the fact that the nice houses and cars really belonged to the banks, and not the people who were the, again, “apparent” owners, etc.
Stupidity is not exclusive to America. People in the former communist countries fought for freedom and prosperity. . . I’ll take it back. Actually, they mainly fought AGAINST communism. They didn’t know exactly what they were fighting FOR. What they got is unfettered capitalism. The workers lost, or to be accurate, gave up all their rights. The developing ruling classes in those countries - a new concept for the younger generations who grew up after the war - are now free to fire anybody for any reason, there is no real minimum wage, there is huge (and under-reported) unemployment, massive emigration, and all kinds of abuse. Sounds like America now, (except for the emigration, that is) doesn’t it? And they do have McDonald’s now, too.
RichM: “First of all, there have been only a very few efforts made at getting even a nominally socialist society off the ground.” Which is it that we are talking about here - communism or socialism? For your information, Rich, these are two different systems.
“To say that socialism can't work because people are greedy & selfish is very similar to saying that democracy can't work because people are unfit to govern themselves, so what they really need is an all-powerful king to make decisions for them & put the fear of God into them.”
Again, I didn’t mention “socialism” in my post, and I happen to think that some kind of market socialism, maybe involving workers' co-ops, would be far better than any form of capitalism or communism. And as for the all powerful king - if he had both the brains and a heart, I’d take him over the current so-called democracy in the US, where half the people don’t bother to vote, and 80% of the ones that do are semi-morons voting against their own interests.
Here is a question for you Rich, since you seem to know everything about everything. You mention that ordinary citizens in communist countries worked very hard, often with “impressive accomplishments”. In that case, why didn’t these countries surpass the capitalist countries economically? I suppose that one reason for that is that, unlike the capitalist countries, they didn’t steal from others. But it couldn’t be the only reason, could it?
And the greed issue. I remember constantly hearing a saying that roughly translated would be “no matter if you work on the job or just rest, you’ll still bring the money home”. Even if you were a bad worker, your supervisor wouldn’t fire you, because he didn’t care himself - your lack of productivity didn’t affect you or him financially, and anyway you were both in the same boat. In other words, yes, they didn’t want to work for the common good, they’d prefer a financial enticement. Not because they were bad people, but it's human nature, Rich. Human nature.
I usually enjoy reading your comments Rich. Too bad that sometimes you feel the need to be arrogant, insulting, and condescending.
Thank you.
Bea
'ordinary citizens in communist countries worked very hard, often with “impressive accomplishments”. In that case, why didn’t these countries surpass the capitalist countries economically? I suppose that one reason for that is that, unlike the capitalist countries, they didn’t steal from others. But it couldn’t be the only reason, could it?'
If the communist bloc did not steal foreign resources like the capitalist bloc during the cold war, that's probably significant. It may be that the USA "succeeded" not by its economic model of unfettered private ownership of production but because it plundered every resource with wild abandon, including the hearts and souls of its people, so for example, Russians can appreciate the arts and USans can't. So USans buried themselves in work, i.e. submitted to exploitation, while Russians tended to enjoy life more. We see in Japanese culture the same kind of human resource exploitation. Is it capitalism that "succeeds" so beautifully in Japan or is it the sacrifice of souls that "succeeds"?
If citizens of the communist bloc were fed a pill to trust their government propaganda, like USans always trusted theirs, then communist bloc citizens may have "done better", i.e. built "bigger pyramids for the pharaohs". USans have always believed they had freedom when they didn't, believed they had justice when they didn't, believed they had democracy when they didn't, and believed they had to consume material opiates to be happy - all lies.
Then we note that capitalism never accomplished anything by itself. It always depended like a parasite on socialism, at all levels in societies, in the home, in the community, in the civic institutions, and even in the lower levels of the corporate hierarchy. When USans point to capitalism as a "successful economic model" they are really pointing to a much wider system of racketeering, propaganda and social control - a highly successful enslavement model.
Rtdrury, you make a lot of good points.
The capitalist system has been undeniably more successful economically than the communist one. However, this broad statement gets a little blurry when you look at the details - meaning the well-being of individuals. I guess, like you point out, it all depends on how you define success.
“USans buried themselves in work, i.e. submitted to exploitation, while Russians tended to enjoy life more. “
I think you hit on something here. A lot of people in the USA, including immigrants, work really hard, usually just to accumulate more and more useless toys. The toys are here, and they hear on TV that they must have them to be happy. So they work to be able to buy all those gadgets and somehow they don’t notice that they don’t even have time to enjoy all those gadgets, or their own life. At some point they rationalize that they do it for the kids, not realizing that the kids would prefer to spend some time with their parents, rather than getting another piece of plastic crap.
In communist countries you couldn’t get most of those toys, even if you were willing to work hard to get them, and people resented it. They resented it enough to reject the whole system.
When I said that communism doesn’t work because of human greed, my point was that simply put people will work for something that they can see benefits them directly and short term, rather than aspire to lofty goals that are distant and perhaps achievable, but God only knows when.
It’s the same with religion - be a good person, and you’ll go to heaven. That sounds fine, should be important enough if you believe that your whole afterlife depends on it, but in the meantime we have to hunt terrorists, so we “temporarily” disregard “do not kill”. We want our stuff cheap, so we disregard stealing, in the form of exploitation of other people, etc. We want cheap food, so we devastate the environment. Take global warming - we’ll destroy the planet before we give up our lifestyles. Sad.
If you want people to behave in a certain way you have to give them a motivation. I say most people choose their own short-term interest over doing things that might benefit society, but require individuals to make sacrifices.
Bea and RichM, I like your discussion.
What do you say to the explanation of the USSR's demise detailed in the paper 'Collateral Damage' by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<?
Both RichM and Bea have done an excellent job of discussing the capitalistic and communist/socialist systems of government. But their dissections of these two very different types of governing people around the world begs the question why, in today's struggling economic times, the mainstream media cannot hold discussions on the many talk show programs that populate the airwaves regarding socialism. One would think that the people in this country might be interested in learning about another system of governance since capitalism in the West has been, to put it mildly, struggling, with large corporations needed to be bailed out by Obama while doing almost nothing to help those whose homes have been foreclosed by the lending institutions of America. But one strongly suspects that despite economic times being as tough as they are, the last thing the corporate media wishes the public to hear about is that socialism may not only not be the bugaboo that they have always been led to believe but that it could very well provide a viable alternative to poverty, lack of housing, a decent wage and basic and affordable health care in this country. It would seem that the last thing that the corporate media wants the American public to know is that there may a system out there [which, as I stressed before, has never really been tried before] that, as my Universal Health Care button proclaims, would not place profit over the interests of the people.
Apology accepted.
I don't disagree with anything you are saying, Rich.
If I might add one comment, it would be that most people didn’t readily embrace communism, which led to coercion and repressions, which led to disillusionment, and that’s how the vicious circle started.
Both of Orwell's books show that there are pluses and minus in both socialism and capitalism. If Orwell were alive today, he would not support one system over the other. In both books, Orwell made it crystal clear that you cannot change the system from top to bottom but instead of bottom to top with some supervision on all levels. In the novel "Animal Farm", the animals were entertained with the idea of a violent overthrow only to be left with an equally tyrannical set of pigs. This had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism although the way the pigs conducted business on the farm less openly compared to the previous tyrant made matters worse. There was no change in the overall structure of the system, just changing the leader. Likewise, in "1984", Winston made a foolish mistake of thinking that taking down one leader at the top would change the system. Again, it had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Obviously, it failed. Orwell didn't prefer one system over the other but made it clear that in any system, there are winners, losers, and abusers who will do their darndest to dominate. I've seen your reference to elephants and trampling in anger but I do not believe that unfettered violence is the answer because like unfettered capitalism, a crook can cash in and rig the system to their own liking. Take a look at the rising gun ownership in today's society. We have an armed populace and yet the tyrants at the top have won and still are winning because they're able to pull everything from under our noses while the gun-toters believe that a French Revolution is coming when it ain't. I have come across countless non-violent ideas and solutions that are better than relying on violent revolutions to solve the mess. Large organizations and movements start with small ideas followed by unity and expansion. George Orwell wouldn't deny that. Both sides can argue which system Orwell would have chosen, capitalism or socialism, but so far the fact remains that he's referring to any system. The fact is any system can be fudged over time and no violent revolution will fix that. A long term problem requires a long term solution even if it looks "wimpy" at first glance. Quick fixes such as violent overthrowing simply cover up the problem and don't attempt to undo the long term damage but in fact worsen it.
Naomi Klein makes a clear distinction between regulated capitalism and unfettered capitalism in her book "Shock Doctrine". The latter type of capitalism she calls disaster capitalism and rightfully so. I like socialism for the most part because I believe in a basic safety net for myself and others. At some point, however, I could see where regulated capitalism would give me a little more leeway but I certainly do not support unfettered capitalism.
Absolutely! Its the unregulated Capitalism started really unleashed by Clinton and used by Cheney/Bush that has caused this disaster.
A regulated capitalist economy with real government oversight has always produced enough for its citizens and even enough for social dsafety nets for the less fortunate. Both sides are out of whack at the moment.
Henry8, if you read the novel "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, the donkey character would agree with you and me on that as well. No matter who was in charge and what system was out there, the donkey always reckoned that no system would be fool proof. I think we all could learn from the donkey and stand up for better no matter which system or combination of we face.
I did. Great comment. But these folks keep whacking us donkey's with that 2X4! We need to take it away from them.
2X4 ? And exactly which folks are you referring to that are whacking us?
PS: Sorry if my mind is clouded again. I was just getting upset over at that gun control article at the NRA spokespeople like steel_gray for vomiting his NRA spew on others who could see through this madness. See my posts on that article.
C'mon, Henry8, I know that you know that Reagan is the logical starting point for modern unleashed capitalism. His 'government is the problem' talk, his S&L deregulation debacle and more.
I made this argument a couple years ago, but more simply: You cannot have an infinitely expanding economy on a finite planet.
It's perhaps ironic that two stories here today contradict each other. One says demand for oil will peak and the price decline, the other says the opposite.
It's tough for us laymen to know what to think.
Its best just ignore the clowns on the bozo bus.
Historically if you do not have a growing economy you have a dying society.
I would suggest that a growing economy is not always an expanding economy....something on the order of buggy whips. That activity was replaced by more efficient means. Computers certainly help the economy without expanding it per se. They simply replaced typewriters, letters, etc.
The real problem may lie in an expanding population, which provides the need for more basic economic activity.
This is not a statement of fact but just a possibility, a thought. Any thoughts on why I'd be wrong or right....or both?
I see this largely as a semantic issue, but an important one.
I would suggest the notion of a "growing" economy in the modern sense is largely a misnomer, because economy should include notions such as saving, frugality, efficient use of energy and the highest and best use of resources, human labor included. In that perspective, we can consider how what we have often called a "growing" economy may actually be referring to a weak or even diminishing economy.
I would also suppose that the measure of a "growing" economy involves some measure of the population which benefits from it. In that view, our alleged improving global economy has been shrinking for decades. Arguably, so has our national economy.
Without this more comprehensive version of true economy, it is easy to see how an expanding population can create an expanding economy that is actually no more efficient or productive than before.
In the sense that one cannot stand still - either you are moving forward or falling behind - then I suppose it is okay to surmise the lack of a growing economy equates with a dying society. On the other hand, in the sense that a sustainable economy is key to a growing population, I might suggest if you do not have a balanced economy you have a sick inequitable society.
Excellent. Thanks! Between you and GW I got a clearer picture of what I was trying to visualize. Amazing how often a few thoughts from different sources can bring focus or clarity to what you were trying to see.
Semantics are always important. GW and I went at it over I forgotten even what it was) something for two days before discovering we were agreeing.
My thanks again to you both!
Language is important here. What do you consider collapse? Why must the well being of an economy be measured by economic (GDP) growth? There are many societies that collapsed DUE to "Growth" throughout history.
There are far too many definitions of "Growth" to make the statement that without it a society will collapse.
Lets speak to your conjecture on population growth. Flash Back to Mesopotamia 4000 years ago. The land was rich and fertile. It was wooded with trees. Along comes man to build his cities. They overuse the land. They log every tree within hundreds of miles of their civilization. The society collapses.
This a much smaller population. Their growing ECONOMIES demanded an ever growing demand on the regions resources. Did this translate into too large a population?
I would suggest that the size of population had much less to do with that collapse as did HOW that population ran its economy.
I would suggest that the desire to OVERPRODUCE so as to earn WEALTH in the form of payment for ones crops the root cause. Instead of producing food or logging trees in order to sustain themselves, they OVERPRODUCED food and OVERLOGGED trees for export and to earn WEALTH.
In overproducing they could ship product, be it foodstuffs or other goods to other markets. This stressed their own enviroment and or caused those other markets to overproduce in order to "compete".
Fundamentaly we have to rethink "wealth" Currently we measure it as the amount of SURPLUS we produce over our needs.
I was considering collapse as the economy collapses, people's standard of living goes into the toliet, hunger becomes real, etc.
Overproduction can indeed produce the exact result you speak of. Its happened many times before and you gave excellent examples of it.
My point was that a growing economy does not always mean an expanding economy. Or perhaps I should say I was thinking it doesn't have too. I was thinking of Switzerland, but thats not a good example, they control their population tightly.
I may be using logical deduction that produces the wrong answer. Thanks for the thoughts.
I forgot to say I don't think GDP is a good measure of an economy. Employment and wages would be a good indicator.
Language is indeed important. The traditional measurement of an economy is the use of GDP (the $ value of the economy's total output of goods and services). In this traditional measure unpaid work is not included. So the contributions of stay-at-home parents and volunteers to the economy are discounted. This service, neglected in GDP calculations, without doubt contributes to the happiness and welfare of citizens.
Not only is infinite growth impossible but exponential growth is also impossible on a finite planet. Exponential growth is simply a continuous increase with the rate of growth determining the doubling time. Population growth and consumption of all commodities exhibit the same graph type, gradual increase moving toward a near vertical slope over the past decade or two. Everything that is extracted from the Earth has a renewal rate that exceeds our consumption rate by several orders of magnitude. Thus new oil deposits will form over millions of years. Nickel ores extracted from ancient asteroid impacts will be replenished by new impacts or from the Earth's molten core by tectonic plate movement and volcanoes. However we are rapidly running out of high grade ore deposits.
Once the three basic needs of food, shelter and clothing are met we are faced with wants and choices conditioned, in Western society, by the corporate market economy. The rat race to maintain status does not bring happiness and exposes the rotten core of market economies driven by planned obsolescence. Since the entire economy is measured by GDP and much of it concerns producing obsolescent toys then there is a critical need to develop a new measure of an economy. This should focus more on lifestyle satisfaction as has been proposed for the happiness economy. While I think much needs to be done in improving and exploring this idea, I consider it to be an effective way to get out of the trap of continuously increasing GDP as a measure of satisfaction for economists and politicians.
Sioux Rose
THE PROF: Some excellent points. In my view Dr. Seuss was a shaman, and did his best to leave behind a treatise of spiritual wisdom for children. In his wonderful book, "The Lorax" he distills the lesson(s) we have been volleying around in this particular thread. Casting the argument to children, he basically asks them to examine the "development" model that calls for turning most of nature into an ash heap. Some schools didn't want this book in their libraries! Dr. Seuss understood there is a mechanism (psychology + advertising = programming) which twists human nature into suddenly desiring what it never needed in the first place! He terms this "thneeds." An apt modern T-shirt might read "Thneeds Not!"
Eventually, cancer will almost certainly destroy your body. It makes no difference whether you're being treated by an experienced oncologist or are taking laetrile and coffee enemas. The human race is doing the latter. The almost certainly becomes certainly.
Now, this article begins to get at the heart of the matter, the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet. It cannot be stated more clearly. If the obviousness of this escapes the reader then denial is at play. I defy anyone to create infinity out of a finite number of parts. The present financial system is based more in clever psychology than in the manipulation of numbers. The system is based on the natural desire for "more', not more of the intrinsic values of life, love, compassion, bliss, peacefulness etc., but more of greedy satiation of the senses, which has denial as a hidden characteristic that separates us from our natural essence of consciousness awake to itself, or love, compassion, peace,etc. This essence is what all of the above reside in and is what we are and what we seek. we have been brainwashed into believing that if we grow the economy indefinitely then everyone will become wealthy and finally be able to stop the frantic search for Prosperity. Our methods to achieve satisfaction are madness. We wage war to create peace, We kill to preserve life, We collect money and objects to give us power and make us feel safe, but create danger because others now want to take what we have. The list and the search goes on and on, acting as an obstacle instead of a giver of what we already are as silent prosperity. Real prosperity is what subject and object appear in, objective prosperity is illusory and finite.
Sioux Rose
SIRIOS: I know how abstract some of my thinking can be, so permit me to act as translator to your post: the individual who experiences satisfaction through close, loving relationships is less-inclined to fall into an acquisition frenzy, the type of which too many take for the path out of their unhappiness. (They would fit nicely into the Mick Jagger, "I can't get no... satisfaction" crowd.)
Robert E. Lane, Professor Emeritus published a study (this was shared on CD many moons ago) entitled, "The Loss of Happiness In Market Democracies." It concluded that more persons value nurturing, loving ties over fiscal status and its toys. Judging from the "masters of the universe" stealing the pubic's money in a number of ingenious and not-so-ingenious scams, regardless of how MUCH they have, they still feel empty. Nothing from the tangible plane (things) can fill the void inside; for that aspect belongs to something NOT of this world, and tends to be intangible and nonreceptive to Madonna's prescription in the form of: "I'm a Material Girl."
We failed to control our populations, properly regulate our factories, and properly protect and preserve our natural resources. What did we expect would happen? For once, can we get these children out of the sandbox and put some adults in charge before it is too late?
When we realize that there is already enough wealth for all of humanity the problem then becomes one of the distribution of the sufficient wealth we already posess.
Before we all start drooling at the prospect of defunding Goldman-Sachs, Bill Gates, or the Hunt Family of Texas, realize that even someone living off of social security retirement is "rich" compared to a simple majority of the billions of poor and desperate people in South Asia, China, Africa, and Latin America.
Poet
The real problem with the concept of a "growing economy" is what gets counted and what doesn't. The real work done by mothers, caretakers of the very old and the very sick, those that further civilization through participation in the arts, gardeners and other protectors of the environment doesn't get counted as an economic endeavor. Only projects that can be defined in terms of dollar gain get counted--and some of those such as education are not captured very well at all.
We can grow these human aspects of our society as manufacturing declines. How do the teachers, mothers, care-givers get support? From those that have the means, of course. What other possibility is there? We can grow (in the broadest sense) only by diminishing the gap between the over-consuming rich and the rest of us. The new definition of economic growth must go hand-in-hand with economic justice.
Sioux Rose
DROSERA: Lovely post! You have outlined the shift in values from the Mars-rules (Mammon assisted) society to one that lends virtue to Venus. The current species of rabid resource depletion capitalism that treats the world as a virus with the living world its host MUST change. And it's apt to shift in the manner you describe, although plausibly the transition phase will be neither peaceful nor harmonic.
I quite agree with the author that we need to get away from an economic model based on indefinite growth (and towards a steady state model based on sustainability). However, the 800 pound elephant in the room (which the author failed to mention) is human OVERPOPULATION. Unless we address this issue, and hopefully in a proactive and humane manner rather than waiting for nature or wars to run their course, the future will be bleak as we run up against the natural limits of our finite world.
"and towards a steady state model based on sustainability" . . . and there's the rub!
As Newton declared, as he asked for my advice, clobbering together his second law of thermodynamics "Entropy"
NOTHING IS SUSTAINABLE . . . jeeesh . . .
newton did not know, nor did darwin and malthus, that entropy is balanced by syntropy, and that the function of life in the universe is syntropic ..
thank you for this yummy tidbit...syntropy...
" Things" are not sustainable but what the mind thinks is nothing is sustainability itself. When the mind has no object of observation being presented to it, and because it is confined to relative meaning ,then devoid of the latter it concludes that there is nothing. When thinking ceases and we realize that awareness continues within it self then what was thought to be nothing or emptiness is exposed to be fullness. this experience of fullness is not explainable or provable to detractors or believers. It is what the believers and non believers appear inside of .
Jeeesh x ???????????
You remind me of the sirios I met on Alternet. I was a bit too hard on him at first but I did atone for that and lightened up some. I love his mysterious posts on Alternet. :)
It is I, Jennifer. Thanks for the tip about Common Dreams.
No problem sirios. Welcome aboard. :)
P.S.: I do visit the other site back and forth as well since there are some good folks on that site too and once in a while, I feel like helping them out with some thinking of my own and/or great thoughts and ideas from here to share there. Today, Alternet turned out to be filled with too much social issues stuff so I thought I'd check back at the end of the day. It turns out there are more than 600 comments on the second article Alternet posted on Obama's birth certificate. On the first one they posted earlier, I just made it clear that I thought that at this point, Obama's birth certificate is just another non-issue. Frankly, I don't even care if an alien from outer space is in charge of the White House and thus running the country. Can whoever is in charge in Washington please actually represent the people's interests? Few in Congress make their best effort while the WH is just as bad as the last one. Seeing how this administration has gotten worse beyond the fears of some of us who voted 3rd party and a hell of a lot faster than most of us feared, I forgive those who regret voting Obama or Mccain and welcome them aboard. I'll admit that even last year, I didn't even realize that I was actually voting on the issues more than just my being a huge fan of Nader. In 2000, Nader sounded more dynamic than Gore. In 2004, I was angry when the Democrats forced Nader off the ballots in several states and again from the presidential debates. In 2008, I went insane having to put up with Obama flip-flopping issue after issue while Nader held to his and I agreed with most of Nader's positions while Obama ended up looking like an unknown. There's so much to learn on this site and it just gets more interesting even if it can sound depressing at times.
You are right JB, don't sweat the small stuff. It is a smokescreen, a decoy, a distraction for the looming awareness for the unfathomable deeds of the system.
The smoking gun 9/11 and the crime behind the bailout will spoil and fester until the system is exposed. It will not be a pretty sight.
Fortunately we don't have to worry about entropy since everything is ultimately powered by the Sun, at least for a few billion years.
The sooner we realize this fundamental truth the better. If only we had fundamentalist Sun worshippers instead of the current lot maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
"human OVERPOPULATION. Unless we address this issue"
You're blaming a "thing" instead of the culprits perpetrating the crime. That's like blaming the steel bars for your imprisonment.
Your point has been raised plenty on Common Dreams and the conclusion is that we can't reach all 6 billion people with the message to stop procreating. But we CAN reach our fellow USans with the message to stop feeding the greed machine. All sorts of dominos that need to fall will fall in such an approach, and the insitutions of global law and order will rise again, out of the ashes of USan greed fanaticism. Then we'll have such things as mass awareness of the responsibility of the global citizen to help protect the biosphere, including basic rights for all.
Finally, questioning growth! And by what financial mechanism is growth driven?
The quantification of debt wrongfully applies the algebraic concept of exponential growth - compounding interest - upon money. The distinction between usury and interest is an arbitrary legal determination with no basis in mathematics. Nothing can grow forever at an ever-increasing rate. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth.
Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that embraces compounding interest and excludes other forms of money from the Market.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/18/1236759.html
Mammon sez:
"Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that embraces compounding interest and excludes other forms of money from the Market."
***************
The very real answer to the very real problem you present is debt repudiation on a regular basis (every 7 years or so) and the outlawing of the sale of land (it can only be leased for a specific period--no longer than 49 years--after which it returns to the original owner).
These two measures would instantly eliminate either the exponential accumulation of debt soaking up the value of all wealth (because compounded debt grows faster than wealth ever could or should) and the concentration of property ownership (which is the ultimate source from which all wealth is derived) in the hands of the few. It's called the year of release and Jubilee and it can be found in the Old Testement and goes back to the Summarian culture of the fertile crescent.
An excellent and exhaustive academic analysis of this system can be found in Dr. Michael Hudson's "The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancelation" at:
http://www.michael-hudson.com
look for the title under the "articles" button.
Poet
"Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell."