I have wondered for a long time what is the obsession with endless growth we have in our society, since Columbus we have known our world to be finite, and since the 60's we have had photographic evidence of this. Why then is it so important for our society to continue to grow endlessly? We hear our politicians constantly calling for higher birth rates, we hear the implication that economic growth is dependant on population growth. Is it? Can economic success only come with a growing population and a growing economy? How are we ever to tackle our environmental problems if we cannot even come to terms with the finite nature of our biosphere and its resources? It is my opinion that we need an economic model that can come to terms with the reality of a flat or decreasing population, the problem is how?

How do we end the growth obsession? Realistically? and how do we maintain wealth and standard of living with a shrinking population and possibly even a shrinking economy to go with it?

Up until recently both America and Australia were frontier societies. It really was all about growith. If we didn't expand and settle the land then some other group of people we don't like would have and we would have had to share the continents with them.  >:( The Amazon is still a frontier society. Even in Europe, rapid advances in agriculture have seen something similar. With fishing, it is only fairly recently that we have come up against fundamental limits to global catches.

It is not not much an economic problem as a psychological one. However, some things about the economy will inevitably change. In frontier societies, human labor is the limiting factor. In stable societies, resources are the limiting factor. This can lead to 'capital' problems where resources like land start to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy and you start to get bigger wealth gaps and an underclass with no resources.

Quote:

Why then is it so important for our society to continue to grow endlessly?

We will have to wait until an even greater economist than Keynes comes up with a new theory, which will put a positive spin on continually retracting markets!

What was Keynes' theory?

Mixed economy, rather than no state intervention under laissez faire.

A core principal is that  governments are responsible for increasing spending in a period of economic downturn. I always thought that meant encouraging an economy that had static or increasing growth.


This contrasts with the modern theory of Friedman, which focuses on monetary policy.

zoso wrote on Mar 21^st, 2007 at 4:57pm:

I have wondered for a long time what is the obsession with endless growth we have in our society, since Columbus we have known our world to be finite, and since the 60's we have had photographic evidence of this. Why then is it so important for our society to continue to grow endlessly? We hear our politicians constantly calling for higher birth rates, we hear the implication that economic growth is dependant on population growth. Is it? Can economic success only come with a growing population and a growing economy? How are we ever to tackle our environmental problems if we cannot even come to terms with the finite nature of our biosphere and its resources? It is my opinion that we need an economic model that can come to terms with the reality of a flat or decreasing population, the problem is how? How do we end the growth obsession? Realistically? and how do we maintain wealth and standard of living with a shrinking population and possibly even a shrinking economy to go with it?

Well Zoso - you may have conquered 'space' through North America (and its portal to Yellow Asia through the Amerindian).
But you have not conquered 'time' through Sahul (and its portal to Black Africa through the Aborigine).

So the world isn't quite as finite yet, as you think.
PS: Sorry I took my 'time' with this response Zoso.

...Zoso?


...Zoso?


...Zoso - you still there? :-/