Yet we are ten years later and the interim period didn't just see no alternative metaphor make any inroads, its been regressive in very visible terms. At some point there is a need to understand what is going on? There are several possible scenarios:
* psychopaths really do rule the roost. a tiny minority of well placed individuals hinder any chance of systemic change, essentially sacrificing the majority (and future generations) so that they maintain their current status quo for a few more decades
* there is positive change but its imperceptibly slow, dominated by "noisy" short term regression. the timescale of change is simply too slow to satisfy the impatient activist. the tumor is ultimately under control, too bad for the current generations, just keep persisting
* there is no change, because there can be no (controllable) change. the system is trapped in its own logic and sources of legitimization. Like a Jenga game we are at the point where removing any piece will bring down the whole. Like a runaway tumor, the faulty DNA will keep expanding until the organism is dead.
Maybe there are other narratives that better explain the situation or maybe its a combination of things. But we need to start understanding what is really our true condition.
It is rather more difficult to say, "Here is a solution that will suck less."
In fact, it is hard to say, "Here is what a solution would look like." Government planning? (In the most generous terms; "government" is the mechanism that large groups of people use to make large decisions. I find myself somewhat dubious, particularly if your take is, "psychopaths really do rule the roost.") Eliminate economic growth, somehow? (But people want cures for Alzheimer's and cancer, and all those people currently living in huts and squalor may not want to continue doing that forever.)
(Given the history of such things, I'm personally beginning to suspect that saying, "there is a problem," without also saying, "and here's what I want to do about it," is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.)
Another aspect that western societies have difficulty to reason about is to think in negative terms. Nassim Taleb calls this “Via Negativa”. We normally think about solving problems by doing things (adding), but we can also solve the same problems by avoiding doing harm (subtracting). But avoiding doing harm normally doesn't make a profit, it doesn't contribute to growth.
Health is a perfect example of this, most of the modern diseases could be preventable by eating less, sleeping more, and having a less stressful life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dispossessed#Anarchism_and...
sara chayes has some observations on this:
How competently have our own leaders been governing for the past twenty years? Meanwhile, how successful have they been at achieving that other objective: adding zeroes to their bank accounts? Which of those was in fact their primary objective? https://www.sarahchayes.org/post/failing-states
[1] http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_...
but somehow this event has not yet worked its way through into the system. the collective assumed all liabilities, the usual suspects benefited handsomely and position again to resume the feast. back to bean counting and "calculated risks" so as not to hinder the "recovery" etc.
Haltingly, ineffectively, and temporarily. 4-7 million people and counting have died from a disease that most experts still agree could have been stopped if we were willing to actually move away from a growth goal.
But, I think your conclusion is right. The people have the power to change our goals, even if those in power refuse.
The vast majority of life at all scales persist through primarily maximizing "growth" (replication), implying that the associated risks (cancer, resource exhaustion) have been acceptable and are sufficiently mitigated through various mechanisms.
It would be hard to find a superior strategy (or metaphor) that won't be catastrophic once your ecosystem shifts.
Obviously, the growth of Homo required other taxa to be consumed, since man don't feed on inorganic material. The principle of entropy guaranties that this equation holds even if inorganic input and outout into an arbitrarily defined system of organisms is considered.
It simply doesn't make sense to view living beings as either open systems without a clear boundary (and I don't mean cell walls), or as closed systems to the extent of inclusing ev-ery-thing.At best you have defined living being as open system that is "growing", but then you have excluded cancer already, as though any system were only open if in principle fungible for man.
You have completely missed that growth ad infinitum is problem, not re-growth.
In the linked article, the term "economic growth" is used without definition. One of the main causes of inequality is credit growth - not growth in economic output, which wouldn't be problematic but there is almost no such growth in the west.
Keen sees a potential solution in what he calls a modern debt jubilee.
I also recommend catching Lacy Hunt when possible. These two economists have different perspectives, but both have fresh perspectives.
Whether it's right to classify these people as "sociopaths" is up for debate, but their role is pretty clear. In particular, the career politicians and others existing at the interface between capital and government are looking out for themselves and their careers first, and the mid- to long-term health of the economy last. I do think it's illuminating to practice some empathy for these people, given that most humans are selfish to some degree (and for very good reason), but I strongly believe that they are the problem in a very real sense. We need a system that bends their ambition to the benefit of the people, but it's not clear what such a system would look like or if it could exist at all.
On a somewhat related tangent, I think commenters here are misunderstanding the linked UKL piece. My interpretation is that it's not calling all expressions of economic growth bad, but rather suggesting that growth (in so many words) as a guiding metaphor is incomplete, deceptive, and ultimately harmful.
Basically, there's an arms race between any democratic system and the people who live within it. We haven't updated ours in ages, and it shows.
I'd like to see more people talking about "liquid democracy." It too would be just another tit-for-tat in the arms race of corruption, but so it goes.
The beast we're trying to cage is us, every bit as clever. So we must be every bit as clever in how it is caged.
but money (or that other favorite punching bag, corporate structures) are really straw men. they are just recent, transient and evolving constructs. it is conceivable that we could do better with improved versions, or even additional such tools that we haven't yet imagined.
there is, in this respect an interesting data point. this other "pandemic" (cryptomania). this too is mostly depressing in the amount of financial / economic ignorance it reveals - but it offers a silver lining in showing how indeed "made-up" the money system actually is, and thus its in-principle malleability
It's hard to imagine a calm, reasonable, informed person with any degree of empathy making this kind of judgement about any significant piece of writing. What does being calm and reasonable mean if you rush to this kind of judgement? What does being informed mean if you don't know any other perspectives on a topic? What does empathy mean if you can't imagine people not agreeing with you?
It took humans ~15 years between discovery of CFCs destroying the ozone layer, and 197 countries signing up to a worldwide ban on CFC manufacturing and use. Depending what it is you're objecting to, we've seen people raising issues of CO2 and climate change almost since oil was discovered, 100+ years ago, and decades of stagnant wages, increasing value capture by the economic elites, destruction of coral reefs, increasing wild fires, floods, storms, melting of polar ice and glaciers, increasingly hot summers.
What is it you aren't hurrying to judge, and how long more are you planning to wait? Have you honestly not heard any other perspectives on any topics of population, energy use, environmental problems, social organisational problems, economic problems, growing imbalance between rich and poor, etc?
What if we decided "we have grown too much" right before the invention of the internet? What if we did it right before the invention of household appliances that liberated women throughout the world to do something else with their time? What if we did it before urbanization? Before agriculture?
If we're honest, we look back on all the progress that happened before us, with gratitude. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the fact that we have a warm place to sleep, reliable food sources, ability to connect with loved ones no matter where we are - these aren't things we wish never existed (yes, I realize not everyone has these things but more people have them than ever before.)
So I look at it like that, and then I ask - if we keep growing, challenging ourselves, experimenting, etc - will the people living in 100 and 1000 years thank us for it? The pessimists say "no", but history seems to show that "yes" - the trajectory of the world has been in the right direction for human safety, comfort and happiness.
By any measure - infant mortality, safety from war, education, access to culture, etc - we're the luckiest generation yet and there's no reason to stop working to give our children more of the same.
Of course we need to be smart about how we do it - look for sustainable and clever ways to grow that benefit more people - no question there. But to STOP growth is to betray our future.
She's arguing (rather imprecisely, since she's not an economist) against a narrow version of uncontrolled economic growth that maximizes shareholder value and raw economic output.
And the objections she voices - growing inequality, environmental externalities, etc - are well-discussed within the field of economics itself.
And while humans _are_ generally more well-fed, sheltered, educated, etc. right now than during past times, there are very serious problems on the horizon, due to increasing population, climate change due to burning hydrocarbons, and other factors deeply entangled with human economic activity.
Where does society draw the line? It was okay to grow to this point (or 20 years ago or whenever the arbitrary dividing line was), but now we need to stop? Why not 100 years from now or 500? Maybe if we stop now we won't get to a post scarcity world where aging has been cured. Maybe we won't terraform Mars. Who knows what might be possible.
Or more simply, do we stop growing and make life harder on the developing world? Or is it okay for them to grow to this arbitrary point and then stop with us? What if the solution to climate change comes about from technological progress due to economic growth over the next 30-50 years?
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/21...
In my experience, our growth has motivated a lot of these things.
Where I differ a bit is that zero growth is not the solution, but rather slow and sustainable growth. What we have now is awful. In the US, you have close to zero percent loans from the Fed to outfits like Blackwater who can buy residential property and rent it for a few percent pure profit. Young people I know who want to buy a home don’t get close to zero percent loans from the Fed.
With both political parties fully supporting the elites it seems like all is lost, but I don’t think this is so: massive peaceful demonstrations are the only way to make progress. When peaceful Occupie Wall Street protestors were brutalized at scale, I think the whole world noticed, and this kind of peaceful mass protest is probably what the world elites fear the most.
EDIT: I just noticed that she was not calling for zero growth, rather for equitable sharing.
Unless the mercenaries are back and diversifying into real estate, I think you might mean Blackstone?
Yes, it was great how that incident ushered in a new age of shared economic prosperity and political rationality.
So whether or not one calls for zero growth, we should plan for an eventual situation of zero growth and structure our society so this is a good outcome.
The problem with zero growth is that we would also need to have zero population growth. There are two ways of achieving this: the nice one, where we get everyone out of poverty and people naturally stop having so many kids because they're not poor any more, or the nasty one where we impose limits on how many kids people can have. The nice solution would definitely require lots of economic growth to lift all of us out of poverty (without reducing the living standards of the people currently having no kids to the point that they start having kids again). The nasty solution has only been tried by China so far, wasn't that successful, and has lead to all sorts of demographic problems for them.
We do have a problem with income inequality which should be a lot easier to fix than stopping growth.
But how far in the future is this? Our light cone is finite, but it has a vast amount of energy and matter. Maybe we don't get much father than the solar system, but that's still a lot more resources than the Earth. Just the sun itself is an enormous ball of energy we're barely making use of. Sure, a Type 3 civilization might find it difficult to grow much beyond it's galaxy, but it would take a while to get to that level. We don't really know where civilization might end up in the long term.
"Question 13: “What will improve the quality of life for the future generations of your family?”—with boxes to rank importance from 1 to 10. The first choice is “Improved educational opportunities”—fair enough, Harvard being in the education business. I gave it a 10. The second is “Economic stability and growth for the U.S.” That stymied me totally. What a marvelous example of capitalist thinking, or nonthinking: to consider growth and stability as the same thing! I finally wrote in the margin, “You can’t have both,” and didn’t check a box."
And within a short time, everything was back to business as usual. Then in 2020, Black Lives Matter protestors were brutalized at scale. The whole world took notice, the police kept beating the shit out of people, a lot of lip service was paid, and nothing changed.
I'm not advocating for a violent revolution here, but what about meekly letting the state beat the shit out of you seems to be working?
The economy has turned into this "heads I win, tails you lose" tool for the rich. 1. When The Economy™ is going up, already rich people (read, people with significant investments) get richer, but the average person doesn't really benefit, and the bottom ~50% get no benefit at all[1]. It's like reading that company-wide email celebrating your boss's boss's boss's promotion. Congratulations, but who cares? 2. When The Economy™ is going down, already rich people aren't really affected that much (maybe their vast portfolios go down some double-digit percentage, Boo-hoo), but the average person and the bottom 50% lose their jobs and experience misery. It's a gigantic casino, where jackpots only go to a few already at the top, and all the costs and losses are borne by the rest of the public.
1: Almost half of all Americans do not own any stock at all, including in mutual fund or retirement savings accounts. https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
I found: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N If anybody has better data (and I care about normal people and poor, and do not worry that the rich get richer)
If not all the "labor" inputs are eaten up by society-wide subsistence, some value will continue to accumulate, somewhere. To the degree that owners allow the workers to retain any of their "surplus value of labor," everybody's lot will continually improve.
There's no iron law which says that growth 'has' to go to the top 10%
Robert Kennedy said in respect of GDP “It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life really worth living.” [1]
You have alternatives like the genuine progress indicator (GPI) that includes aspects such as pollution, criminality and health to the GDP. Most of all we can have many measures, we should not reduce progress to only a number.
> ... Its meaning forked in English. Via the notion of "coarse in texture or quality" came the senses "not sensitive, dull stupid" (1520s), "vulgar, coarse in a moral sense" (1530s). Via notion of "general, not in detail" came the sense "entire, total, whole, without deductions" (early 15c.), as in gross national product (1947)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/gross
Okay, not quite rigid, but not either dull, stupid. It's actually difficult to believe the outline, while the beginning is uncertain.
A gross may also have meant a dozen, and Groszen was a coin, maybe a dime a dozen. So, what are these twelve products that estimated national domestic production there and then, metal, salt, textiles, big macs?
I can get halfway to agreement here, but UKL's assertion invites the question of who is in control?
More pointedly, how do we agree upon the operating point and stabilization mechanisms?
THAT is the sticky wicket.
"You, you and you do not get permit for procreation. You, you and you are not allowed to leave your village ever."
At the very worst, we may get Khmer Rouge-like program of violent degrowth and return to agricultural roots.
Biological growth is always physical. Economic is not, there is a large virtual component (maybe too large!). It is possible to generate a lot more economic growth through clever ideas such as invention of e-mail than through deforesting the entire Amazon. A lot of inventions that generate economic growth actually save the environment. For example, modern production of electricity is probably less destructive than the traditional logging of forests for wood to burn, which was the preferred way from minus infinity to 1800.
I hope there is a better way to maintain an economy, but nature isn’t a great inspiration.
Until then, there's work to do.
It is also typical of a famous writer and a very high status person not to see that others would want/have to compete for status in other areas. Not that she is wrong, but the world is a complex place than one can imagine.
You have a giant industry trying to change your wants, making sure you are not satisfied with what you have.
If your population is growing and your economy isn't, somebody is having problems.
For instance the richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity [1].
We can have prosperity without growth, and we cannot have infinite growth in a finite planet.
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
The current capitalist-market does some things pretty well, but it was not ever described as a system until after it was already working in practice.
(I'd go as far as saying that there's no great accepted explanation of what it does well and how it does it so well).
Also reminded me of Einstein in his essay 'Why Socialism?'[1]
"Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
Unlike a lot of technologists or experts today Einstein was very aware of the difference between what is and what ought to be and the limits of trying to manage human affairs with expertise, which shows a remarkable level of humility given his achievements in science. The narrative of never-ending growth, or inevitable 'technological progress' or expert management all strengthen the same premise, that people cannot take control of their own environment or aim to develop economic or technological domains towards social and ethical ends.
Deploying the latest build to prod in 5 minutes, while I write a comment here, instead of spending 8 hours typing commands and hoping the DB doesn’t explode, is economic growth. Sending a text to my mother for free, instead of spending a trillion for an intercontinental phone call is growth.
As per the “system” or “capitalism”, I am not sure I understand what it is supposed to be. If I really had to give a definition, I’d say capitalism is the result of some Italians inventing the anonymous/limited company and double entry bookkeeping between year 1000 and 1500. I don’t understand what we are supposed to do about that, and this opinion piece doesn’t really add anything to the conversation. There’s a discussion to be had on income and wealth inequality, but a discussion is not noise, such as this piece.
As per “socialism”, it brought chaos, death and destruction wherever people tried to implement it. Unless we call “socialism” what’s going on in continental Europe, which is workers rights, unemployment benefits and personal hygiene. And that we call capitalism.
Failing to acknowledge this points to a reading comprehension deficiency.
> It’s as silly for me to write about economics as it would be for most economists to write about the use of enjambment in iambic pentameter. But they don’t live in a library, and I do live in an economy. Their life can be perfectly poetry-free if they like, but my life is controlled by their stuff whether I like it or not. > > So: I want to ask how economists can continue to speak of growth as a positive economic goal.
do not address any of my points. It sounds like “It’s as silly for me to write about urology […], I know nothing about urology […] urologists don’t write software […] I urinate everyday so I’m going to say something about urology […] blablabla”
Liberals idealistically look to the future and say what if!
Whereas, conservatives pessimistically look to the future and say what if!
Human nature seems to corrupt any system that exists so I don't know if a system exists that can both accommodate human nature and also spread equality better than capitalism.
I think the key may be to control it somehow.
How do you control something that per it's own definition works better the less controlled it is? Hence Le Guin suggesting that the inherent limitless uncontrolled growth goal in capitalism is akin to cancer. Because no cell is better at spreading than a cancer cell and when the body is consumed by cancer, some sort of equality is reached, that being every non cancer cell is equally influenced/wiped out by the cancer spread.
I think by good regulation you can get better long-term growth.
But that's just speculation. I don't know what the solution is.
Human nature corrupts every system, even systems that start out great.
So what you need ultimately is a system which can easily be shrugged off when it becomes corrupt.
With votes or dollars instead of bullets and blood.
Education maybe? It takes educated/ aware people to overcome tribalism and see that bettering societiy as a whole also betters them.
When will the poets stop ceaselessly creating new works? We've reached and surpassed the optimal size for the body of poetry.
What a nonsense argument.
