[Roach]

Im currently reading the book "prosperity without growth" and it made me want to get another environmental thread going (although they almost never go anywhere)

So i'll attempt to bring economists out of the woodwork, economic growth is hailed as the holy grail that provides us with prosperity but I'd like them to answer a few questions detailed at the very start of "prosperity without growth" and perhaps a few of my own.

1. What is growing when the economy grows?
2. Is there a limit to how big the economy can grow?
3. Does economic growth provide the same constant benefit or does the benefit from growth fluctuate depending on the size of the economy already?

Im seriously concerned by our economic model and the detachment from the environment that supports us people have, I have found its a subject people don't even want to/ can be bothered to talk about. It does not interest us whether the environment can continue to sustain our societies and yet it is surely a fundamental question of how our societies should function.

[Am_Fìobhach]

Too big a question, as there are many different interpretations of "growth".

In essence, an edible plant or animal has no value until somebody starts preparing it as food. That process adds value and, at a basic level, is rewarded either by the person feeding themselves and family (and, thus, surviving) or by somebody else rewarding the person for the stuff - either in kind (a different sort of food, maybe), or in token form (money). Now, that's the fundamental - you get something, do some work on it to add value to it and get rewarded.

Obviously, things are no longer so direct for most of us. With the rise of agriculture came the invention of land ownership - and it became possible to get a reward merely for owning a bit of land. This reward is usually termed "rent". Also, the rewarding mechanism - money - itself became a prized possession, as those who had this could, for instance, allow others to use it to fund their workshops - and get a reward for doing so. That reward is usually called "interest".

So, with a multiplicity of rewards available - and with many people fulfilling roles that are needed but not actually directly producing anything - the concept of "economic growth" is, to say the least, a very complex one. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to address your questions in any sort of convincing way.

[Roach]

Quote:

virtually impossible to address your questions in any sort of convincing way.

I feel this is avoiding the issue, but I'll be more specific.

In the UK economy growth is directly linked to resource use, to demonstrate this i'll go through your examples of growth provided.

Quote:

n essence, an edible plant or animal has no value until somebody starts preparing it as food. That process adds value and, at a basic level, is rewarded either by the person feeding themselves and family (and, thus, surviving) or by somebody else rewarding the person for the stuff - either in kind (a different sort of food, maybe), or in token form (money). Now, that's the fundamental - you get something, do some work on it to add value to it and get rewarded.

The point at where resources are used to produce "growth".

Quote:

Obviously, things are no longer so direct for most of us. With the rise of agriculture came the invention of land ownership - and it became possible to get a reward merely for owning a bit of land. This reward is usually termed "rent". Also, the rewarding mechanism - money - itself became a prized possession, as those who had this could, for instance, allow others to use it to fund their workshops - and get a reward for doing so. That reward is usually called "interest".

The person who makes money through investment (workshops) is increasing the ability of the resource consumer (workshop) to increase their output increasing resource use, the return made from this investment is typically re-invested to fuel more output and resource use or spent on material items providing a demand for the items produced by workshops, this 2nd point applies to landlords as well.


Are you suggesting A_F that the british economic growth is decoupled from material throughput? In some ways it may be but the truth is economic growth in the current economic model of this country is heavily linked to resource use.

Does this not concern you at all A_F when you consider that resources are finite? our economy relies on continued growth for stability but continued growth that increases resource use is not sustainable.

So is this too complex a question to answer? should we shy away from discussing it because we feel that there are many definitions of growth.

[Am_Fìobhach]

Of course it concerns me! All I was saying is that it's too complex a question. It might be better to look at bits of it. Incidentally, how close do you reckon the world is to exhausting the supply of solar energy?

[Roach]

Quote:

Incidentally, how close do you reckon the world is to exhausting the supply of solar energy?

taking the piss A_F ? hard to tell online.

Quote:

Of course it concerns me! All I was saying is that it's too complex a question. It might be better to look at bits of it

Fair enough, I still think you can make the general statement that our society is not sustainable. This doesn't have to mean that all parts of our society are unsustainable just part (or a significant) amount of our society is unsustainable and that further economic growth in its current form is unsustainable as it will increase resource intensity in both currently unsustainable and sustainable areas. It must also be true that in all areas there is a ceiling on the growth that can be sustainably achieved. This can be stated without the need to specify particular resources, there is a ceiling on all resources even as you may have (comically or not) said on the supply of solar energy.

(reading over my post I think i need to think of another word other than sustainable)

[DanConservative]

1) Production, GDP.

2) No

3) Hard question to answer. Standards of living do not necessary grow just because the economy grows. It depends in what way production, output, GDP has risen. Generally if things stay the same, if output doesn't increase and the nation doesn't get any more money then things probably aren't getting better for the individual citizens. Unfortunatlely we can have inflation, rising prices, an increase in the money supply but an increasing rate of unemployment, this is called "Stagflation".

Relating to the environment, it can't sustain us forever. And whilst economic growth will probably hail better contempory living standards for individuals, in the long run we will have to face the costs of a rapidly increasing population, especially as resources become scarce.