A Tree is a Tree: Growthmanship in the Developed World

At the risk of potentially offending many on this forum, I say the answer is yes.Humans are compelled to change whatever environment they encounter to one they feel makes life more comfortable. In fact, the ability to do so is the very definition of human.The relentless striving to better one's station in life through the exploitation of the environment is usually a successful and beneficial strategy for survival.Unfortunately another human trait is a certain short-sightedness that favors immediate gains over long-term consequences.Instead of the impractical yet wholesome idealism you promote and which I agree with to a point, I believe humanity's restlessness and need to conquer their environment may actually in the long run be positive.By that I mean there is an entire, and largely dead universe that could use a human touch. Our own highest ambitions and worst faults do not need to be restricted to one planet now that it is possible to inhabit, terraform, and indeed exploit other worlds.At least this time it generally should not come at the expense of other multicellular life forms.In the meantime, your ideas deserve serious consideration as humanity actually needs to exist long enough to dominate their expanding universe.

I think I can agree with you on this. What we have now isn't the normal human drive to improve life but some sort of disease, and not just short-sightedness. For example, even if in the short term it would do more to improve well-being to have a forest out our window, for some reason we make paper plates instead.In fact, we see how people actually try to increase well-being in the short term when they read a book, adopt a pet, or take a piano lesson.And we see the disease of growthism when someone who wants to do those things is working overtime instead, making far more money than they need producing far more goods than anyone else needs. That probably fits into one of the area where we could use some growth Growthism is largely a problem of priorities.

I'm still unsure of what you're measuring. Is it GDP per capita? is it consumer spend? What is your variable?And I don't understand why you wish to confine it to the first/developed world. What is it that is inherrantly wrong with 'growth' in the developed world that is apparrently not in the undeveloped world? Why should growth be fine for centuries up to the 1970s but suddenly not thereafter?And I repeat the claim that it is not the level of economic growth that matters - if what you are measuring is well-being or contentedness - it's how equally that created wealth is distributed across society.It's got something to do with how the new (from economic growth) wealth is used; if it creates hospitals, schools, parks, employment, housing etc it adds to the common good - if it adds fourth overseas mansion for a plutocrat or rots in a tax haven it doesn't.It's got something to do with how the growth is created; if it pollutes, deforests, warms the globe, creates gettos and abuses low paid workers it does more harm than good.I think you're confusing and conflating a lot of different variables under an ill-defined umbrella that you've called 'growth' and are in danger of chucking the baby out with the bathwater. You need to unpick them if you're going to get to causation - growth is neither universally good nor bad.

Tangle asks: From Jon's Message 14It's kind of a Law of Diminishing Returns once a developed country reaches a certain level of human well-being. It's harder to get more well-being without hurting something else.We should be reaching for the stars.Edited by xongsmith, : Credit to Jon's post

It's right there in my sources: Wright's measuring consumption, income, and happiness (per person, obviously); the TLS article is measuring GDP per capita and happiness; the Phys.org article is measuring GDP per capita (you have to follow the link to see that) and GPI.They are using several metrics for gauging growth and a couple for gauging well-being.Their observations all lead to the same place, though: once an economy has grown to a certain point (relative the population size it serves), further economic growth in and of itself no longer translates by necessity into increased well-being, personal satisfaction, happiness, etc.It's all right there, Tangle, in the evidence you asked for. I think I've made that more than clear. Equity of wealth distribution matters but not to the degree you suggest. And even when we correct for this variable (by looking at countries with more equitable wealth distribution, for example), we find that overall well-being has not changed much in the last several decades even as economies have grown and grown. Our countries don't rank too high in terms of income and wealth equality, so let's look at a country that does: Austria. In the paper discussed in the Phys.org article"Beyond GDP" (pdf), Ida Kubiszewski found that Austria's GDP (shown on page 60 [4]) has been steadily climbing since it's first measurements in the 1950s. Several indicators of its population's well being, however, stopped climbing around the end of the 1970s. And a similar trend shows for all the countries listed. The only times we see well-being rising above that 100-130 zone is when something other than GDP can be clearly pointed to as its cause:

quote:

---

Ida Kubiszewski in "Beyond GDP" (pdf):

​

United Kingdom's GPI/capita follows GDP/capita between 1952 and 1969, at which point GPI/capita experiences an intense spike, peaking in 1976, but dropping quickly to prior levels. This is a time when the Tory government of Edward Heath came into power, and began to cut social programs, which continued throughout the Margaret Thatcher period. (p. 65 [9])

---

The biggest thing to take away from all this of course is that GDP has been rising steadily in all of these countries, while well-being has been doing its own thing.Economic growth for the sake of economic growth doesn't increase well-being. And I mentioned that in the OP. (Though I notice you snuck 'employment' into the mix, which is more growthism thinking: jobs in general = good.)However, we simply cannot bring about the level of economic growth pushed by policy makers and economists just by spending more money on schools and hospitals.And not everyone can be a teacher or a doctor. We need to seriously look at our current model which forces people to continue increasing output or face this invented evil called unemployment and the destroyed families, homelessness, starvation, etc. that today's model forces to be a result of this U-word. The levels of growth desired by economists and policy makers really require the increased production of pointless widgets, the marginal utility of which is so low that they add hardly anything to well-being while their costs often negate any benefits they provide.And that's the point where we need to ask ourselves, What's so great about growth?Using the wealth wisely is important, but it is also important to know when to stop generating it in the first place and devote our attentions and energies to activities more likely to make us better off. Again I mentioned environmental degradation in the OP (and the message you responded to). But even when we take this into consideration increased growth not tied to destruction of the community's environment still has no impact on well-being past a certain point (see Kubiszewski's data, for example, which show many countries increasing their GDP while lowering their ecological footprintat least within their own bordersyet still not increasing well-being). Which is why focusing on growth for growth's sake is bad policy.Edited by Jon, : clarificationEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

I don't doubt that. But that's not very interesting - it's been known for years that humans can be happy once certain conditions are met - enough food, sleep sex, safety, sense of belonging, self-esteem etc. For those to be achieved though a level of economic growth has to have been met that can provide the things needed for them - employment, health services, law and order, defence services, social institutions and so on.But I fail to see why further economic growth can't improve all these systems - particularly health, education, democracy and so on.You'll note that the wags have added a further tier to Maslow's pyramid. It's humorous but has a serious point. Without economic growth since the 70s personal computers and the internet wouldn't exist, we couldn't communicate like this and people like Bill Gates wouldn't be able to try to cure disease in Africa enabling the third world to begin progress up the pyramid.Your analysis is confused by assuming that growth is universally bad - which it obviously isn't. When it's used constructively to improve society it's always a good, whether that results in an improvement in perceived well-being or not.Measuring the subjective happiness of Austrians over a few decades is missing the point - the internet may not have made people happier that are already at the top of the pyramid; but just try taking it away from them

Still keep sneaking 'employment' into the list of things people need, eh? That's because you fail to understand basic economic concepts like marginal utility, the law of diminishing returns, and probably haven't looked at the graphs in the Kubiszewski paper I linked you to. Nope. It's not. That's your assumption, and you haven't proven any of it. I've laid out a considerable amount of evidence to dispute this.Good by Tangle's standards is meaningless nonsenseeven more so when Tangle's standards admittedly ignore objective measurements of well-being and welfare. In other words, you've chosen to ignore all the evidence presented in order to preserve your fantasy.Have fun with that.

For the proven reason that employment provides sense of purpose and self esteem - amongst other things like the ability to take a decent holiday and feed the kids. I have a master's degree in business - you can assume that I understand these terms. I can live without being patronised. That's because so far you haven't begun to make a case. What we do here is explain in our own words the case for or against. I'm still waiting for you to do that - I'm not yet interested enough to start on your one-sided reading list, you've not yet given me anything that tells me it's worth it.So far I find it unremarkable that the developed world's sense of well-being isn't keeping pace with economic growth - even if true.And I'm still wondering how your sense of wellbeing would be affected by the removal of gains made by economic growth since the 70s and how the first world's cash spent in under-developed countries is going to be replaced. Maybe their welfare doesn't count as much as ours?

There are other sources. We're constantly telling religionists that you don't need to be "given" your sense of purpose by a higher power. You don't necessarily need a job to give it to you either. And of course, many jobs don't improve your self-esteem. The growth paradigm is based on the notion that some jobs are "worth more" than others. To me, the holiday-taking in western cultures comes from a desire to get away from one's day-to-day life. If your job improves your self-esteem so much, why would you want to get away from it?

There are many other sources; self-esteem is complex thing. So? Jobs are convincingly associated with self-esteem. Some deliver more than others. Some are just shit - but most would rather have a job than not; all other things being equal. If an individual can maintain high self-esteem without a job (and in poverty), good for him/her; but it doesn't seem terribly attractive to me. Silly. You don't abandon the self-esteem gained from a worthwhile and fulfilling job by going to Spain for two weeks.

So, if you don't need growth for self-esteem you don't need growth for self-esteem. Kinda like you don't need peanut butter for self esteem, so why mention it? That seems to be the point of the thread - to get out of the growth-is-good rut so we don't all have to be like you. Then why would you go?

Unless we have full employment and no population growth we need economic growth to provide jobs. Jobs have been consistently shown to provide people with a sense of purpose and self-esteem - both of which contribute greatly to happiness. Other things also contribute to self-esteem, volunteering, raising kids etc etc, most rely on basic economic necessities being met. Before you dismiss the value of having a job and the things it provides I suggest you talk to those that don't have them. Since when has poverty been happiness for anyone but Ghandi? Would you choose it over prosperity? To get new experiences, sleep in, meet new people, learn a language, explore other cultures, get a suntan, fuck in the afternoon, fish in the morning, read the novels you've got no time for - whatever floats your boat. Rather obvious, no?

I did look through the graphs, but am not convinced by the trend they're purported to show. You mentioned the UK's in particular, which shows a increase till the mid 70s, rapid decline tll the 90s, then rapid increase thereafter. Thailand's shows a staggered but consistent rise. New Zealand's wobbles about. The US' rises till the 70s then flattens. Japan's rises considerably. Italy's is pretty jerky, but the general trend is relatively flat till the 80s, when it rises, then flattens out again from the 90s on.So what are we to make of this? I'm not sure we should try and make anything. GPI appears to be calculated by putting together 26 indicators, some of which are not commensurable with each other and some of which appear to be pretty qualitiative concepts. If we take all this together, estimate it for a bunch of different countries and watch the graphs rise and fall for a variety of unrelated reasons, I'm not sure what the average trend from all this is supposed to mean.Don't get me wrong, I agree that an increase in GDP does not necessarily mean an increase in wellbeing, but this is something that everyone has always known, including policy makers who may ignore the fact. I just don't think that GPI appears to be actually measuring anything.

The only thing that's proven is that folks have been looking for ways to get around the need to work for their standard of living since the beginning of time. From the wheel to the coffee maker, all of these things are meant to do one thing and one thing only: decrease the work to well-being ratio.Outside the system where selling one's time for wages is required to sustain oneself, nobody would willingly sell one's time for wages.The evidence is that outside of these systems, nobody is selling their time for wages.If you think otherwise, then show me the people outside of this system who constantly bemoan their lack of access to the nine to five. Show me the people living well who just can't shake the nagging feeling that if only they had a time clock to punch life would be even better.Where are they?Do they exist in the real world or only in your head? I've presented plenty of evidence. If what you're saying is that you don't want to consider any of it, then so be it. I won't waste my time presenting more.Everyone else can see that I have provided numerous points of evidence to support my position in every instance where we've disagreed while you've provided none to support your position.You pretending my posts don't exist only fools youyou and you alone. Really? Just what should the point of economic growth be? What should the point of any of our productive ventures be? The evidence suggests it wouldn't be affected much at all. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?

And that's really what your argument boils down to: the primary means by which a job delivers 'self-esteem' and a 'sense of worth' is through the income it provides.