|
U-Know! Forum » NEW FEATURE: An Economy Not Worth Saving |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jun 30, 2010, 10:10
|
||
|
The prioritising of economic growth ignores some simple and vital truths. Mainly, that you can't have continually increasing consumption of finite resources. There is a need to produce and provide for our needs and a sizeable degree of comfort beyond that, but attempting infinite growth is impossible and, ultimately, suicidal. Dale Pendell's nailed it succinctly; we should recognise that we've done growing and have now reached maturity. He spells it out in the new U-Know Feature article, An Economy Not Worth Saving. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=103
|
|||
geoffrey_prime 701 posts |
Jul 01, 2010, 01:59
|
||
|
I read this twice...and I dont quite get it. All I could think was "Pseuds Corner", reading phrases like: We need to mature into a post-growth adulthood, in which we can find comfort and grace in a long slow recession - otherwise we will be the only species to move from adolescence to senescence with no maturity in between. Although I am a thick Troll, I will keep tuning in,,,and would be grateful if anyone can spell out, in simple terms, what this is all about..
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jul 01, 2010, 09:09
Jul 01, 2010, 09:09
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: would be grateful if anyone can spell out, in simple terms, what this is all about. Our society's primary purpose is economic growth. 'Economic growth' is essentailly a way of saying 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'. It doesn't take an especially brilliant mind to figure out why you can't have perpetually increasing consumption of limited stuff. So we'll inevitably hit a crunch point. Unlike other pyramid schemes, it won't just make people bankrupt. It will take away the ability of future generations to meet their needs, an d make a lot of species extinct along the way. Like any crash, it is better to do it in a slow, controlled way rather than accelerate into it as if it won't happen. The first step is to stop measuring our wellbeing by how much money can be made by the super-rich. Then we need to ask what things we need, and beyond that what things will make us happy while having the minimum interference with the ability of those who come after us to meet their needs. This means the end of the economic growth as we presently understand it.
|
|||
IanB 4702 posts |
Edited Jul 01, 2010, 10:22
Jul 01, 2010, 10:21
|
||
|
Doesn't this negate the possibility than man can invent / create his and her way out of this cul de sac? Isn't it making the same basic error and failure of imagination that Adam Smith made 230 odd years ago? The inabaility to see man as anything other than in a fixed and final state of development? I am an amateur in this area but the fallacy of a state of technological stasis and a decline of a fixed set of resources seems to be central to how the left and right set the stage for their dance of death. The two sides of a fundamentalist argument clinging to each other for dear life as their relevance to the present recedes. As ever I suspect the real work is being done elsewhere.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 01, 2010, 12:46
|
||
|
IanB wrote: Doesn't this negate the possibility than man can invent / create his and her way out of this cul de sac? Not at all! The whole point of the piece is that we can invent our way out of this, that we are capable of dreaming up and enacting ways of being that supply us with fulfilling lives without being based on something like ever-increasing consumption that can only fail.
|
|||
handofdave 3426 posts |
Edited Jul 01, 2010, 20:21
Jul 01, 2010, 20:13
|
||
|
He's probably right, but billions of human beings suddenly thrust into a subsistence existence is fucking terrifying to contemplate*. Ironically, I see mass starvation, war, and even more ecological devastation in the wake of a drastic curtailing of our present economy. You can't take billions of people with no land and no farming skills and just cut them off without creating another set of very large problems. It's unavoidable... when you talk about intentional, drastic, sudden reductions on human impact you bump up against the specter of worldwide upheaval, and not a nicely managed one. *Yes, I'm very aware of the irony of that statement... difference is that the people already living that life know the ropes. I think most of us, even here on H2H, would be very, very lost and desperate (and driven to do things we are loathe to contemplate now) if called on to live that way. An alternative is continued expansion via some ecologically sound and inexpensive access to the solar system, which of course is an oxymoron...
|
|||
|
geoffrey_prime 701 posts |
Jul 02, 2010, 02:05
|
||
|
Do you "re-read" what you write? "Our society's primary purpose is economic growth. 'Economic growth' is essentailly a way of saying 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'". Is this your view (on "economic growth")..or a political view you may or may not agree with? Secondly, what do you mean by "economic growth"? How are you measuring this? Finally, is this you commenting that 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'? What does that mean? So far, after two goes, this still sounds like "flannel".
|
|||
joudicca 360 posts |
Jul 02, 2010, 09:52
|
||
what's your fave cope track?
|
|||
Squid Tempest 6704 posts |
Jul 02, 2010, 09:58
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Do you "re-read" what you write? "Our society's primary purpose is economic growth. 'Economic growth' is essentailly a way of saying 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'". Is this your view (on "economic growth")..or a political view you may or may not agree with? Secondly, what do you mean by "economic growth"? How are you measuring this? Finally, is this you commenting that 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'? What does that mean? So far, after two goes, this still sounds like "flannel". Merrick's writing makes sense to me. On the other hand: "Is this your view (on "economic growth")..or a political view you may or may not agree with? Secondly, what do you mean by "economic growth"? How are you measuring this? Finally, is this you commenting that 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite'? What does that mean?" ...I'm struggling with. Surely you know what economic growth is? And 'ever increasing consumption of resources, most of which are finite' isn't exactly hard to grasp. After two goes, it still sounds like "face cloth".
|
|||
Eduardo 373 posts |
Jul 02, 2010, 10:19
|
||
|
I didn't read it like that at all. Why does a move to a sustainable economy mean a subsistence culture? And why overnight? The concept in the feature is one of tapering off. But I agree with your fears, between what we have today & what where things need to be is a bleak transition and it is a scary prospect.
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page