|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Tree is a Tree: Growthmanship in the Developed World | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Have First World societies out-developed their need for further economic growth? Is growth for growth's sake still necessary?
quote: Certainly there was a time in the now-developed world in which many people lived so close to the edge of subsistence and extinction that growth in pretty much anything was indeed positive. But is that the condition we still find ourselves in? I don't think so and I think that we are at a crucial point in the history of our planet when it is of utmost importance to free ourselves from the superstition that says that it is. I'm going to put my thoughts on this into bullet points, and I'll expand them if anyone is interested in a discussion on this topic. First, why I think growthmanship now, more than ever, needs to be seriously questioned in the developed world:
Second, some ways I think we can be rid of growthmanship:
Finally, some alternatives to growthmanship:
There are hurdles to overcome, some inherent in humanity and others built into the system, but I think this is a good start for a discussion and those hurdles can be dealt with as they come up. There are also plenty more things that could be added under each heading, so we needn't limit discussion to only those things on the lists.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Socialists, communists, and other authoritarians should just butt out and stop trying to micromanage humanity.
Don't all their failures make them realize they are totally unqualified to manage their own lives let alone anyone else's? Or are we just supposed to let them extend their string of failures until we are all like Venezuela, and worse?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Thing is, communists are as bad at growthmanship as capitalists (e.g., the Aral Sea).
See, capitalism, socialism, communism, etc. all deal with how to distribute the wealth. Growthmanship (or growthism) deals with how much wealth to produce. Growthmanship has been favored by all modern economic systems. So the solution is not as easy as switching from capitalism to socialism. In fact, doing so is sure to have no effect whatsoever on growthism or its negative side effects.
quote: Notice that the issues with which economic systems concern themselves are how goods/services are produced, how they are exchanged, and who benefits from these activities. But growthism is outside of the economic system. It says that making the system (whatever it may be) work harder (whoever may be working), produce more (whatever may be produced), and create increasing benefits (regardless who gets them) is a goal in and of itself. It's a problem that can exist under capitalism, socialism, or any other modern industrialized system. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : readability and clarity Edited by Jon, : TypoLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
quote: I dont quite understand how this would benefit anyone. Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: I dont quite understand how this would benefit anyone. Eventually (we may already be there) we develop the capacity to adequately provide for everyone's needs. The rational step after reaching this point is to reduce the amount of work required to meet those needs (i.e., increase the efficiency) with the ideal being no work required, or 100% unemployment.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
so we wouldn't need to work? Would our rents be paid? Our cars gassed up and running trim?
Would our kids have clothes? Would we have free food?Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
so we wouldn't need to work? Would our rents be paid? Our cars gassed up and running trim? Would our kids have clothes? Would we have free food? You're still thinking in terms of unending growth.
quote: When all of our needs can be met without the input of human labor, then the only rational thing to do is to meet our needs without the input of human labor. Let me ask you this, Phat: Does it upset you that you don't have to run up to the mountains each week to hunt down some ice, chisel it out, and drag it back down the mountains to stick in your icebox? Or do you prefer a world where a machine cools the air inside your refrigerator automatically and continuously, keeping the temperature always the same and all with no effort from you? Edited by Jon, : linksLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
There's a huge amount of assertion and assumption here without any supporting evidence. It's also extremely US centric - not all developed countries are as extreme in their capitalism as the US.
Growth can be both good or bad or both depending on who you're talking about and when. At the moment China is a good example of growth delivering both simultaneously. What we do seem to have some data on is that those developed countries with the least gap between rich and poor tend to be the most content. They are also high taxation countries with high social welfare.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It's also extremely US centric - not all developed countries are as extreme in their capitalism as the US. As I said to Coyote, capitalism has little to do with it.
Growth can be both good or bad or both depending on who you're talking about and when. Yes, and that is pretty much assumed in the OP:
quote: What we do seem to have some data on is that those developed countries with the least gap between rich and poor tend to be the most content. Yet they still devote themselves to growthism. In fact, pretty much every modern economy (I cannot think of one exception) is built on growthism.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: As I said to Coyote, capitalism has little to do with it. Then let's call it trade instead. As Coyote's favourite author says, 'you could put two Chanamen on the moon and they'd make a living selling rocks to each other.' Trade is what grows economies and when growth stops you get stagnation.
Yet they still devote themselves to growthism. In fact, pretty much every modern economy (I cannot think of one exception) is built on growthism. I think you'll find that they devote themselves to having strong economies that can fund the social good. Growth is a biproduct of a strong economy. Stagnation tends to be a biproduct of a poor economy. So far, you haven't made a case for an alternative or even offered any evidence to show that this 'growthism' of your invention is the bad thing you seem to think it is.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
What about a fruit tree? You prune away the excess growth to prevent stagnation and promote production of what you need.
... when growth stops you get stagnation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Trade is what grows economies No... trade keeps economies going. It's increasing trade that keeps them growing. Trade is, of course, a good thing, because not all places on the earth are equally endowed with the resources we find good for a nice life.
when growth stops you get stagnation. So says the dictionary. But who cares?
Growth is a biproduct of a strong economy. Stagnation tends to be a biproduct of a poor economy. Because that is how growthism defines economic strength!
So far, you haven't made a case for an alternative or even offered any evidence to show that this 'growthism' of your invention is the bad thing you seem to think it is. I laid out bullet points for anyone to pick out. I'm not going to elaborate on all of them, just the ones folks want to discuss. So, pick one out and we'll discuss it.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: I laid out bullet points for anyone to pick out. I'm not going to elaborate on all of them, just the ones folks want to discuss. Well you might as well start by defending your very first sweeping assertion.
Increased growth no longer leads to increased well-being. What is your evidence for that statement and to whom are you applying it?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Increased growth no longer leads to increased well-being.
What is your evidence for that statement and to whom are you applying it? I'll answer the second part first, since it's the easiest, and was addressed in the OP:
quote: Now to the first part of your question. In the thread Replacing Consumerism, I cited a paper by Eric Olin Wright regarding increased consumption (one of the aspects of increased growth) and overall well-being:
quote: More generally, we have:
quote: quote: These figures that show well-being capping in the 1970s line up with other measures related to growthism's ills. In her book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein argues:
quote: It's almost serendipitous that at the same time we essentially maxed out on well-being our little planet maxed out on its ability to handle too much more growth. And despite finding ourselves in a beautiful equilibrium, we just kept growing and growing and growing no matter the lack of need for that growth, no matter its injurious effects on our environment. Of course, the environmental impact of growth is a separate matter, but the correlation is important enough to point out (and becomes even more so when we start to consider how environmental degradation itself affects well-being). So does this mean that all growth is superfluous? Not at all. For example, a new medicine that cures a disease is the type of growth that might increase well-being. And small increases in well-being over the last several decades have probably stemmed from these kinds of growth. But growth for growth's sake (the kind that policy makers and economists focus on, the kind measured by broad figures such as GDP) does not have that effect. Much of this kind of undirected growth not only goes to waste (it produces no well-being), but uses up resources that could be put to better use on growing areas that actually do produce well-being. And of course a lot of this is related to marginal utility, but we can save that for another post or two (if necessary). Anyway, there you have it: the evidence you requested plus segues into a couple of my other points if you'd like to move into discussions on any of those points. Or, if you'd like to climb into this point deeper, we can do that too.The choice is yours. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : typoLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Coyote writes: Socialists, communists, and other authoritarians should just butt out and stop trying to micromanage humanity. I mostly agree with this sentiment with some caveats, such as enjoying a world without smallpox for one. My main problem with with this sentence is you left out entire categories of micromanagers. You know, like conservatives. Conservatives who abuse the concept of capitalism by using the tax code to redistribute wealth from those who work for a living to those who enjoy gambiling. What is the ultimate result of this concentration of wealth and the power it buys to profit the few at the expense of the many? It is historically called feudalism, although in the USA a better metaphor may be the concept of the plantation. Why should the wealth of productive members of society be redistributed to parasites, such as corrupt politicians, unethical bankers, Wall Street inside traders, and religious fanatics? Essentially anyone out to lie and defraud the public out of enough money to bribe politicians and public figures to prevent them from becoming convicted of various felonies before they either disappear with the proceeds of their crimes, or in far too many cases, die before they can be brought to justice. Is that your ideal concept of society, and if not why did you omit the other parasitic criminals who micromanage? That is what the current tax code does in the USA for one simple reason - Money buys power and as the founder of modern conservatism Burke said "power corrupts." Such as: Tax-exempt religious fanatics who promote racism, homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism (cloaked in absolute bullshit), a war against science and logic, indeed nothing but pure hate which every major religion's founding texts condemn. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power. Polluting parasites such as the Koch brothers whose wealth is subsidized by the poor and middle class producers through tax breaks they bought with campaign donations. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power. A militarized police force and rate of incarceration which would be the envy of any brutal dictator in history, whose actions specifically target any minority or dissenter, often by cold-blooded murder. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power. Micromanagement to such an extent it denies women the right to own their own bodies and denies to all non-wealthy people the right to who they choose to have sex with, what forms of contraception they may use, what substance thy may put in their bodies regardless of reasons or consequences, indeed even free trade in sex between consenting adults for mutual benefit. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power. The very right to obtain medical treatment for easily cured conditions increasingly preserved for "the right people" in the USA. The health care system in the USA amounts to selective genocide. Because it makes money and money for a few at the expense of the many buys power. I could go on forever. Perhaps you should replace the word socialism with conservative or the recently corrupted term libertarian when it comes to the concept of micromanagement.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024