G> 3.

3 Limits to growth - Part 2

P So, Helen, are you saying that we need to have less growth, or no
growth at all?
H Well, the idea of endless economic growth is obviously a delusion.
Economic growth of 2.5% a year sounds modest, but it means
that GDP has to double every 30 years or so. You can't keep doing
that forever - it's common sense.
T Common sense told us we couldn't carry on growing as much
as we have in the last 50 years. That's because we couldn't have
predicted the technological advances that have made it possible,
and who knows what technology we might develop in the future?
P And you think, Tony, that that will solve the problem of limited
resources?
T Well, yes I do. We keep finding ways to use energy and resources
more efficiently. Refrigerators now use half the energy they did 35
years ago. Family cars use half the fuel they did in the 1970s.
H Fine, but we can't expect to keep making such huge
improvements in efficiency. Our resources will remain limited, and
that makes the idea of eternal growth a form of insanity. Look at
those images of the Earth from space, and it becomes blindingly
obvious. The last year that the global economy was at a level
the planet could support was 1983. We're now exceeding that
capacity by more than 30%.
T Yeah, well, you know, I remain an optimist. What's the alternative?
No growth means more unemployment and less social spending
because of lower tax revenues. And, if the environment needs
protecting, no growth means having less money to spend on
doing that.
P Yes, well, perhaps you should say something about the
alternative, Helen.
H The alternative is the 'steady state economy; and even the
great-grandfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, talked about it. He
thought that once everyone had reached a reasonable standard
of living, our economies would stop growing and reach a steady
state. He assumed people would then prefer to spend more of
their time on non-economic activities, things like art and leisure,
and child-rearing.
T Yeah, well, good luck with that. It's the happily unemployed
fantasy - fine until you need some money to do something nice
with your family.
H No, it doesn't mean being unemployed. There would be less
work available, but it can be shared out, so we all do fewer hours
a week. And as I said, the extra time can bring us much greater
happiness.
P But people would have much less income.
H Yes, but that's not such a problem if people accept they 'll have
to consume a lot less anyway. We could still buy new stuff, but
we'd have to get used to buying a lot less of it, and keeping it
for longer. It means getting things repaired more, instead of
throwing them away and getting a new one - that's the way we
used to live not so very long ago.
T Well, I just can't see it, personally.
H Well, I can, so maybe I'm the optimist. And I think it's interesting
to ask ourselves what we really want from life. Why are we hooked
on producing and buying so much needless stuff? Why do we
fill our lives with so much work that we don't have time to enjoy
them? It's not as if we ever meant to create such a stressful way of
life, so now's the time to look at doing things differently.
P You see managing without economic growth as a positive
challenge, then?
H Yes. We can't go back to the growth rates of recent decades, but it
needn't be a depressing prospect - exploring the alternatives can
be exciting! We just need to give up the idea that consumerism is
the central purpose of life.
P Well, thank you both. That is definitely an issue that isn't going to
go away.