A Tree is a Tree: Growthmanship in the Developed World

It's not disproving a strawman. It's proving that your proposed use of resources and labor are worth while.

That question may be too broad still to have a simple "yes/no" answer. I agree with you're main point.
I would even say, though, that growth "for growth's sake" was never necessary.In the general sense, growth "for growth's sake" is an eventual self-defeating idea simply because we have finite resources.Growth requires resources.
Our resources are finite.
At some point our resources will run out.
At some point growth will be impossible.Therefore... "growth forever" is an unsustainable plan.
Therefore... we should have always had an alternative view.Unless, of course, we have enough resources "for us in our lifetime" and we simply don't care for the future. But I don't accept that view as particularly worthwhile.So, if growth is not always good.. when do we stop growing? When is "sustaining" good enough?
When does our sense of contentment overcome our greed?Very broad and complex questions that will differ for each person.One thing I don't think Jon is suggesting... is to stop production.
I think Jon is simply suggesting that at some point we need to stop growing production. That doesn't mean production stops... it just means the output no longer increases but becomes constant.100% unemployment may be an eventual goal. But really, stopping the growth of production doesn't have to increase unemployment at all.It would seem, though, that some form of population control would be attached to this idea at some point. Which, again, is something I'm in favour of... again simply because our resources are finite.I think that the acknowledgement that our resources are indeed finite rationally leads us to a "growth is not always good" conclusion in an obvious way.If such a thing can be agreed upon... then the question moves to "how do we go about sustainability?"
To me, things to be considered at that point are quality of life and equality for all people.

That's the question, not the answer. Do we really need people making new improved fridges and people hauling the old fridges to the landfill? Would people really be "less happy" sitting at home three days a week with the old fridge? In Tahiti, for example, before the colonialists came. I can do all of those things within walking distance of my front door. My chosen lifestyle below the "poverty line" gives me the free time.

I agree with most of your post, but do have a few nits to pick: The only thing I can see leading to a need to increase production would be the development of a new technology (or medicine, etc.) that led to an improvement in living standard.However, it should be made clear that not all technological innovations require production increases. Very often new technologies replace old ways of doing things. Unfortunately this isn't true (at least not if 'employment' = 40 hour work week).In any society, general increases in productivity (the amount of goods/services producible with a given amount of labor)¹ can be translated into two things:

1. increased production with the same labor;
2. the same production with decreased labor

So long as a society finds itself in want of goods/services, option (1) makes sense. However, once a society reaches the point at which increased production cannot/does not lead to increased well-being (a society for which increased production no longer offers a benefit), only option (2) makes sense. To continue, in such a situation, with plan (1) would lead to a production surplus, which boils down to using tomorrow's resources todaystealing from the future.In other words, it's impossible to have full employmentevery able bodied person trading 40 hours of their life each week in exchange for moneywithin a system in which productivity is regularly increasing and unnecessary goods/services are not produced.And the evidence I've presented not only supports this but suggests that we reached that point several decades ago.Which means it's time to start moving in the direction of 100% unemployment: shorter work weeks and increased hourly pay (if each hour of our labor is more productive, we should get more money for each hour). If we don't want to eventually outpace our planet's ability to supply us with resources, then population control is probably a good thing (the earth will force it on us if we don't take care of it ourselves).However, my statistics all focus on the facts per capita, so the excess economic growth cannot simply be attributed to there being more people because it is production relative to the number of people that's being measured. Equality is really the thing. Laborers need to be paid based on their productivity. If work is twice as productive today as it was yesterday, then workers should be compensated twice as much: either by working the same amount and being paid double, or working half as much and being paid the same.This is an essential step in the movement toward fixing the 'market for leisure' (discussed by Wright), which will allow people to decide when to stop producing and start enjoying the benefits of millennia of technological advancements.____________________
¹ The same can be said of any input of course.

That's just shows how spurious this whole argument is. Who said new fridges make people happy and who said people could or would sit at home for 3 days doing nothing without it? Ah, the romantic fantasy of the noble savage. Tell that to all the women that died in childbirth. Dying of toothache is a lot of fun too. Well good for you. Are you saying that you'd like to make those choices for me and everyone else too? And, btw, so long as you're sat in a warm room, with plenty to eat, able to lounge around for 3 days a week picking arguments on the internet, it would be best if you didn't throw words around like 'poverty' to describe it - even in quotes. Those abilities were brought to you by economic growth and are sustained by economic growth.

Economic growth and the use of resources have already been overwhelmingly proven to be worthwhile. Without them you couldn't be doing what you are doing now and probably wouldn't even be alive.Whether resources could be used better is a different argument - as are people's subjective opinions of short-term happiness.

I am rather enjoying this debate, including your contributions. It seems there is no simple right or wrong viewpoint, and you bring up many important considerations.However, I disagree with the following exchange. Sorry Tangle, my small knowledge of history informs me you are somewhat wrong on this point. Stop right there.Tahiti may not be the best example, please allow me to provide a few others.It appears to me, from studying the Plains tribes, particularly the Lakota, they were far happier hunting Buffalo, dominating nearby enemies, and living a rather relaxed and comparatively free lifestyle compared to what modern civilization has brought them. Today they are miserable, stuck on reservations such as Pine Ridge in the poorest county in the USA, with the highest rate of alcoholism and alcohol-related birth defects. Interestingly enough, the two largest volume liquor stores in the USA are right across the state line in Nebraska (alcohol sales are illegal on the reservation), the same state that is suing Colorado for legalizing marijuana and purportedly harming their (white) youth.Native populations also suffer from something far more visceral than just the destruction of their culture once in contact with what we like to call civilization. They also die in huge numbers from diseases for which they have no immunity. In fact, just six hours ago I was reading about the various tribes in Latin America and New Guinea, who are protected from the encroachment of civilization for a simple reason, they die in horrific numbers once they encounter Western interlopers.It is indeed difficult to enjoy the benefits of civilization from the grave.Just something to consider before you universally apply the supposed superiority of Western Civilization in a discussion.Edited by anglagard, : switched adjectives to more appropriate sentencesEdited by anglagard, : Better grammar

There are a few points worthy of consideration in this scenario:1. When people do appalling things to other people, it's not economic growth that is to blame, it's people.2. There's no doubting that those native Americans that stayed on the reservations seem to lead miserable lives. But you are eliminating those that didn't stay on the reservations and joined the majority from your analysis. I have no idea what the numerical balance is there.3. I would need some convincing that the life of a happy plains Lakotan is better than my life as a happy urban warrior - with good education, security of food supply, physical security and relative longevity.
And a satellite navigation system.4. Maybe a native American in exactly the right place in the USA that didn't need to worry about attacks from other tribes, freezing or starving to death in winter and surviving childbirth and appendicitis had a great life. I seriously doubt it - we tend to romanticise these things and can't imagine the hardships - but even if true, he was lucky. For most parts of the world 'simple' existence was harsh, hard, painful and short. Indeed and my life expectancy is probably twice that of even a happy tribal member in the 18th century.

I agree.
The hard part is the next step... who gets to decide what is an "improvement" in living standard?
What's acceptable for a certain group of people may not be acceptable for another. Greed differs from person to person.Is it possible to form some sort of objective or agree-able standard for "personal satisfaction"?Who get's to draw the need vs. want line? What metric is used to determine such a thing fairly? I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning behind your point. I'll try to clarify what I'm saying. I agree with this statement. I agree that this is a solution, but I don't understand how this is the only solution.
What's wrong with simply sustaining current production with the current workforce? No one gets fired, production doesn't increase, but more production isn't required because of some means of population control or something like that.This way... no raise in unemployment, and production is sustained.I haven't really gone through the pros/cons of either option, so I'm not saying one's better than the other... I'm just saying this seems like a valid option, and I think you're saying this is impossible? I agree that population control may be difficult, but I don't think "impossible" is the right way to describe it.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Apart from health, wealth and happiness you mean?

That question is easy to answer in a democracy. So long as each person (and only persons) has an equal say, then the decision is made by the will of the people. So far so good. Now, what happens when, at this point, someone develops a way to turn a one hour process into a 15 minute process? Population control has to do with overall increases in production, but so far we've just been looking at production levels per capita, so the arguments apply at pretty much any population level.If you want to talk about population control, then we can talk about population control. But so far I haven't been talking about population control.

Sounds good to me. Then you start down the road you've described towards 100% unemployment.
Or, you could let some people off, but control the population tighter such that unemployment still doesn't increase.Also... what if such developments are not possible or desired? Then growth can still stop without raising unemployment.I was just saying that it's possible for growth to stop without being forced to raise unemployment.
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the best option... just an option. We have? Oh, than my bad, nevermind about my ramblings, then...
Carry on

It is possible, but it seems unlikely. Innovation is part of human nature. We like making things easier. We can certainly talk about population. It's related to the issue in general. For example, I think discussion of the Malthusian trap is very on topic as it relates to the use of resources for increasing standard of living vs. increasing population.

You seem to be saying that economic growth makes people happy. Economic growth pretty much requires unnecessary consumerism. My question was: Would people be "less happy" with the old fridge and an extra day off? No. I'd like people to know that they have a choice. The "poverty line" is not my invention - I do not consider myself "poor". It's people like you who consider me poor. So let's go back to the example of the fruit tree. Its growth is essentially stopped to make it more productive.