July 8th - Is 'Sustainable' growth possible?
Given that 'growth' is at the very heart of our way of life I'm thinking (and reading) about whether its possible for the economy to continue to grow to provide for humans to flourish but without destroying the natural world on which we depend. I was tempted to say the 'planet' on which we depend, but I guess that, whatever we insignificant humans do to her, Mother Earth will continue on her merry way around our sun. It's the natural environment, the balance of the gases in the atmosphere, the minerals we are digging up, the trees we are cutting down, things on which our lives depend, which we are destroying. We are fouling our own nest.
Economic growth as we know it is measured by Gross Domestic Product which I've come to understand only takes account of the amount of 'measurable' economic activity which is going on. If we look after our old mum at home that's not measured, if we pay for her to go into a nursing home that does. If we walk to farmers market and buy something made locally by a woman in her own home that doesn't count, if we drive to the supermarket to buy that does. If we jog along the sea front that doesn't count, if we go to the gym that does. Am wondering if that really is a good measure of how successful a society is?
I've found out there are (at least!) two problems with using GDP as a measure of how successful a society is in meeting our needs -
1) Most of the things which it measures use up a lot of natural resources and give off lots of carbon emissions.
2) Government policy encourages growth so effort will go into providing for motorists as opposed to an efficient rail system (car sales massively help GDP), developers allowed to build on Green Belt (cheaper than clearing brown field sites), there's more money to be made out of selling washing machines, lawn mowers and the rest to individuals if we all live in single units.
As Tim Jackson suggests we need a new economic model which takes account of our needs, allows us to flourish as he puts it, but which measures GDP with less resource throughput and less carbon output. How can that happen? Will look at that next ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No. On a finite planet it's a flat contradiction of terms. Straight failure of nerve. Growth is over. Get goddamned used to it!
ReplyDeleteThe end of growthforever is already here anyway, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to wish that away. Our only practical recourse is to get on with switching both our thinking and our actions and lifestyles to steady-state economies; and only those after a now mandatory period of chaotic contraction in both economic activities generally, and in human population: The Long Descent.
http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book
(Worth clicking that little vid in the side-box too, on Richard's page)
economics is a cod science (nm)
ReplyDeleteHadn't come across the term 'cod science' before but on looking it up I realise there really is a need for the term! With much scientific research now funded by corporations I guess we are often (dare I say 'usually'?) fed biaised info!
ReplyDeleteYou can debate endlessly about what should be counted in a measure of "economic growth" - but the general concept (whatever you think of GDP as its measure) is sustainable. There are not obvious limits to human knowledge for example. Do we now know everything we as a species are cable of learning about science?
ReplyDeleteGDP, in capitalist societies, measures market interactions and it is "gross" because it does not account for depreciation in capital goods much less depreciation in the natural environment as a result of economic activity.
GDP also uses prices set in the "market" though the markets are often far from being competitive markets thanks to government intervention -often on the behalf of the extremely wealthy who claim they believe in competitive markets the most.Hence the prices used ion GDP are often "wrong" - i.e. not what a society would choose if there were an honest and fair debate about the relative value and costs of things - which is what prices are supposed to be.
In my opinion, to have rational and sustainable economic policy ultimately requires abolishing markets entirely. Even with prices set rationally in a non market economy there may well be better ways to measure economic growth than GDP.
However I see no reason why a society should NOT choose to do better each year than it did before.
Is there a level of child mortality, for example, which we would say is "good enough. no need to try for better"?
You put it so well! Thanks for that. Your distinction between value and quantity seems to be crucial. Perhaps we need a word which is different from 'growth' which usually (not always) has a physical connotation and, rightly, people hold on to the idea that we can't have physical growth in a finite planet. Will have to try to come up with a word which encompasses the idea of non-physical growth. Perhaps 'enhancement' meaning something which improves the quality of people's lives or (as Tim Jackson says) allows people to 'flourish'
DeleteI really like the work of Manfred Max-Neef and his co-written book “Economics Unmasked (From power and greed to compassion and the common good)”
ReplyDeleteIt really is an excellent book!
“Economic growth brings a continuously rising level of material well-being to the well-to-do. But there are a great many who do not profit materially from economic growth. In fact, after several centuries of economic growth the majority of the world's population still has less in the way of housing, food and infrastructure than the rock-bottom minimum needed to live a secure and dignified life. Economic growth is not improving their lot.
Postulate 1. The economy is to serve the people, not the people to serve the economy.
Postulate 2. Development is about people, not about objects.
Postulate 3. Growth is not the same as development , and development does not necessarily require growth.
Postulate 4. No economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.
Postulate 5. The economy is a sub system of a larger and finite system, the biosphere; hence permanent growth is impossible.
Value Principle. No economic interest, under any circumstances, can be above the reverence for life.” Manfred Max-Neef
“An inspiring statement that there is an alternative to the hollow dream of globalization. The authors provide a long-overdue account of how economics came to dominate modern life and how the market came to dominate the economy. This is the story about power and injustice which is a necessary preliminary to any attempt to bring about social justice and environmental balance.”
Molly Scott Cato
I really like what you are saying and will try to get round to reading the Max-Neef book you suggest. Problem is I am really trying to simplify all of this. My hope is that I can get the message about the way we need to change across to people who don't normally read such (to me interesting and exciting!) books. In school I remember those English lessons where we had to write a 'precis' of a complicated piece of writing. Am trying to do that in response to the 'What can we do to change direction?' question
Delete