Why the need for Constant Growth?

Originally posted by teapot
Growth in itself is not the problem. It is the insane drive for exponential growth that is bringing western and developed economies to their knees.

This why I believe slower growth, working in symbiosis with the rest of the natural world, would result in self sustaining economies.

Exponential doesn't mean 'fast'. It means the rate of change is dependant upon the current value of what's changing. N(t)=N*exp(kt). It's the k part that determines the rate. Slow growth = low k. N is population, about 7 billion if N is people. t is time.

dp

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Well without growth we'd still be living in mud huts wearing animal skins and hunting with a sharp rock attached to a stick. Additionally as previously mentioned since the population is growing exponentially everything else needs to as well.

Good point. I'm not knocking the idea of growth and Capitalism in principle. I believe they have brought many great things to our lives. The problem is, they rely heavily on the consumption of resources that are finite.

Well, look at the fishing industry:

Crawfish, in particular. In some areas, no one eats them, so they are left to do what they do. If they die out, they die out and no one would notice them.

Down here, we pretty well eat our weight in mudbugs. To keep up with demands, we have Crawfish ponds, where people do what is necessary to stock and maintain the food they want to eat and sell. The best crawfish are spillway crawfish, which are not from fed ponds, but we make do with what's available.

I find that the best sustained species are the ones we farm. When we practice care-taking what we consume, we do what we can to prevent collapse. For instance, I was tickled for this to make it to a "mainstream site":

#2. White Settlers Did Not Carve America Out of the Untamed Wilderness The reason why North America was so prosperous is because much of the land was cultivated. Now, far be it from me to suggest that NAs actually had everything right, but proper care of the industries you want to sustain is plain good business.

i see at least two types of growth:

1. outward expansion.
2. interior development.

they occur simultaneously, while developing nations may focus more on 1 and mature systems focus on 2.

2 is about increasing specialization and economic activity and moving away from the inefficiency of self-sufficiency.

considering most people die after about 70 years anyway and replaced with their offspring, if they have any, perpetual growth of a system is possible from a certain point of view; as the system is actually dying and being regenerated.

reply to post by jjkenobi


I don't know why people think that this society is good. If we didn't have all the junk we have we would only need to work 4 months of the year to survive. Our desires cause us to work three times as much. We can garden and grow chickens for eggs and meat for food with little environmental impact. We have to simplify our lives a little. I like the internet but internet is cheap and ECO friendly compared to other things we would do.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

but constant growth for every nation on the planet is surely impossible given our current reliance on fossil fuels to power those economies?

Of course it is... you don't need to be a freaking economist to work that out.

Peak Oil, Finite Resources, Infinite Growth, Mathematics and Logic

reply to post by michaelbrux

considering most people die after about 70 years anyway and replaced with their offspring, if they have any, perpetual growth of a system is possible from a certain point of view; as the system is actually dying and being regenerated.

That wouldn't be growth, that would be sustainable activity at a constant level. You ignore the obvious fact that most people leave behind more children than what we lose when they die. That's why the population is continually increasing.

There needs to be a certain amount of growth to keep up with the positive birth rate. If the birth rate were flat, then you could hypothetically enter into the zero-growth argument. You'd first have to separate capitalism from consumerism.

Good luck with all that.

if we look back through history and look at civilizations and empires etc that stopped seeking to grow and develop and sought purely to maintain the status quo within their relative societies then they soon started collapsing inwards upon themselves.

You have it backwards, societies that develop a sustainable culture last thousands of years, while huge empires collapse after a few hundred years.

reply to post by CB328


But they still die. That doesn't change.

reply to post by beezzer


Please...I'm just trying to get through to someone who is online.
What do I gotta do to get my avatar to show. The tools option is being a tool.

Originally posted by CB328

if we look back through history and look at civilizations and empires etc that stopped seeking to grow and develop and sought purely to maintain the status quo within their relative societies then they soon started collapsing inwards upon themselves.

You have it backwards, societies that develop a sustainable culture last thousands of years, while huge empires collapse after a few hundred years.

The United States of America is "Rome", New York City, I feel anyway. The old city of Rome collapsed, the Romans have always ruled, one way or another.
Always will.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam or ad majorem Dei gloriam.

pzacad.pitzer.edu...

workers have a profound psychological resistance to accepting a wage reduction. This theory certainly has the ring of truth. Think how you would react if your boss announced he was cutting your hourly wage rate. You might quit, or you might devote less care to your job. If the boss suspects you will react this way, he may be reluctant to cut your wage. Nowadays, genuine wage reductions are rare enough to be newsworthy.

the psychological theory has one major drawback. It fails to explain why the psychological resistance to wage cuts apparently started only after World War II.

Our brief review of the historical record in Chapter 22 showed that the history of the United States includes several examples of deflation before World War II but none since.

Wages are the major element of cost in the economy, accounting for more than 70 percent of all inputs. Since higher wage rates mean higher costs, they spell lower profits at any given prices.

Follow me on this, "they" need to increase profits but do so at the risk of alienating labor. The labor movements of the turn of the century gave them reason to be fearful of the masses in regards to this issue. The Fed is created. Roaring Twenties ensue, followed by the Great Depression. (Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it does seem rather coincidental doesn't it?) WWII is the sticky point of the above article regarding deflation, so by this point the plan is in effect and will later be cemented in the early 70's.

They keep us high on the illusion of progress (wages). Wages don't keep up with inflation (price and money supply), so that reduces that input. Technological innovation and economies of scale... PROFITS BABY.

SEE what I'm saying:
The conglomerates cartel act in collusion to keep our country's capital in a choke hold. (and it's only getting tighter)