zero growth economics

[tvashtarkatena]

We're obviously headed for negative population growth and zero or negative growth economics; our present system is based on the false assumption of unlimited cheap energy and other resources.

 

After an exhaustive 5 minute google, I can't find much of anything serious about a zero growth economic model. It doesn't seem like there's an economist out there whose tackled this indoor elephant.

 

Strange.

 

Or not, maybe.

 

We're fucked.

 

Eventually.

[Pete_H]

From what I understand those are the tenets of the "sustainable business" model. Maybe google that.

[G-spotter]

Increased mechanization and efficiency = increased productivity with decreased population.

 

Plenty of clean energy available. Mostly the cost is in the transition to running on it. But North America could be hydrocarbon-free by 2030 if we wanted to spend the money.

 

So no we aren't fucked at all. Until our robot factories revolt and make killer drones to take out the meat overlords anyhow.

[hafilax]

People are working on it.

 

Genuine Progress Indicator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator

 

Gross National Happiness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

 

Gross Green Domestic Product

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_gross_domestic_product

[j_b]

It's called steady-state economics. The better known pioneers were Georgescu-Roegen and his student Herman Daly. It's possible to find some of the more utopian seminal papers online such as Steady-State Economics and Selections from Energy and Economics Myths, or more recent discussions like Towards a Steady State Economy. There are quite a few other resources available on the web.

[dberdinka]

How do the capitalists increase their capital in a zero-growth economy? Is that the core of the problem? ...random thought....

[G-spotter]

Given that most animal populations go through cycles of boom and bust it is perhaps unreasonable to expect human economies to meander along with neither.

[j_b]

animal populations go through boom and bust because of a) overshoot (exceeding the carrying capacity of ecosystems), which is prevented through sustainability or b) because of natural catastrophic changes that are typically very infrequent on a human time scale.

[G-spotter]

That's just bullshit. Predator and prey interactions cause boom and bust cycling of animal populations on timescales << a decade.

[j_b]

How do the capitalists increase their capital in a zero-growth economy? Is that the core of the problem? ...random thought....

 

steady state economics also means sustainable development, therefore I would think, profit for investors. Innovations of more efficient technologies allow phasing out of older technologies and de-growth in some sectors, while causing growth of others. A steady-state economy would imply a quasi-steady population on an environmentally and socially sustainable path, which doesn't preclude an increase in wealth. An increase in wealth due to getting more out of less through technological progress or that is entirely within environmental and societal constraints is however not as large as wealth acquired through pillaging the environment, but we know the drawbacks of that scheme.

[j_b]

That's just bullshit. Predator and prey interactions cause boom and bust cycling of animal populations on timescales << a decade.

 

how is this applicable to our specie?

[G-spotter]

 

If as simple a system as lynx, bunnies and plants goes boom and bust like this - why do you think a steady state equilibrium economy is possible?

[G-spotter]

[j_b]

If as simple a system as lynx, bunnies and plants goes boom and bust like this - why do you think a steady state equilibrium economy is possible?

 

are you seriously comparing the human economy to lynx interactions with bunnies?

[j_b]

when was the last time you had to worry about predation in your neighborhood?

[j_b]

I suspect the expression "reproducing like rabbits" has a lot to do with the high frequency and amplitude of fluctuations of that graph.

[Crux]

when was the last time you had to worry about predation in your neighborhood?

When shopping for medical insurance?

[j_b]

LOL

[jon]

If as simple a system as lynx, bunnies and plants goes boom and bust like this - why do you think a steady state equilibrium economy is possible?

 

are you seriously comparing the human economy to lynx interactions with bunnies?

 

Take some ecology classes and you will see that a lot of principles of ecology can be directly applied to economics and monetary policy.

[j_b]

sure, but in this case I'd have to see how prey-predator interactions tell us that the human economy won't reach some quasi-steady state. Most classical economists have argued that growth was only a transient stage

[j_b]

Increased mechanization and efficiency = increased productivity with decreased population.

 

Plenty of clean energy available. Mostly the cost is in the transition to running on it. But North America could be hydrocarbon-free by 2030 if we wanted to spend the money.

 

So no we aren't fucked at all. Until our robot factories revolt and make killer drones to take out the meat overlords anyhow.

 

I am optimistic as well that the energy crisis can be solved to our advantage. The earth is a closed system, which doesn't preclude it from exchanging energy with the solar system.

 

But, on human time scales, the earth doesn't exchange significant matter with its surroundings, which combined with population growth nearing carrying capacity poses the sustainability problem that can only be solved through changing consumption. Something similar can be said for ecosystem services that regenerate very slowly relative to human caused processes (i.e. regarding soils, water filtration, climate, etc ..). It is in this context that achieving near steady-state populations on a sustainable path seems desirable.

Edited March 5, 2010 by j_b