Economic growth like a cancer?

[Akrasia]

Many things should grow until they reach their correct proportion: plants, animals, people. When something reaches its correct size, and then continues to grow, the resulting protuberance is called a cancer. Much of what increases when formal economy continues to grow is a type of social cancer. Speculation grows, irrational or destructive production grows, corruption and waste grow – all at the cost of what really should increase: social justice and the well-being of the majority.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... emID=14351

Economic growth figures are only ever interpreted in one way. The higher the number, the better, but is that the right analysis? Is there ever such a thing as too much economic growth?

The answer should be obvious, on a planet with finite resources, it is impossible to expand forever without eventually consuming ourselves. Isn't that what a cancer is? Out of control growth that strangles and chokes the host body?

Is it not time that we change how we measure success and failure? Some things should grow, while other things are too big already. In order to grow some things, we need to divert resources away from other, perhaps more important things.

Economic growth statistics measure how much things we produce. If we sacrifice producing things and instead produce free public amenities that would make our quality of life better, it might reduce our economic growth, but wouldn't it make for a better country to live in?

[Munion]

You're assuming that humanity will not be able to harness the resources abundant off this lonely blue sphere of ours.

You're also assuming that what constitutes a vital resource remains constant, it doesn't. There's not much of a market for flint these days for example.

[zakalwe]

economics has moved on somewhat from malthusian principals!

[Akrasia]

economics has moved on somewhat from malthusian principals!

really? is that why there are so many millons of people who die every year of malnutrition and lack of access to clean water?
Is that why we're busy polluting our way into war famine floods and pestilence?

We have embraced the term 'sustainable development' but done very very little to actually implement it.

[ibis]

economics has moved on somewhat from malthusian principals!

Funny. One often hears that, but Malthusian limits have not been disproven in any way. It is more, as Munion points out, that limiting resources change. Currently, oil is a limiting resource in certain ways, but if we develop fusion power, that limit will disappear - indeed, even the current development of electrical engines can replace much of what oil currently does for us.

[zakalwe]

millions dying from malnutrition and millions suffering from obesity. indeed obesity may be a bigger problem for the planet's population than starvation (not using malnutrition as obesity can be classified as malnution in a fashion).

its the distribution stupid (not that i'm calling you stupid! its a valid question and one more worthy of debate than ireland's soccer rankings, the property market and SF christmas trees!)

however, the current signs are that the world can indeed support 6bn and probably twice that, but it would require a redistribution of resources currently beyond our means and our tastes.

[irishpeoplearewhingers]

Many things should grow until they reach their correct proportion: plants, animals, people. When something reaches its correct size, and then continues to grow, the resulting protuberance is called a cancer. Much of what increases when formal economy continues to grow is a type of social cancer. Speculation grows, irrational or destructive production grows, corruption and waste grow – all at the cost of what really should increase: social justice and the well-being of the majority.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... emID=14351

Economic growth figures are only ever interpreted in one way. The higher the number, the better, but is that the right analysis? Is there ever such a thing as too much economic growth?

The answer should be obvious, on a planet with finite resources, it is impossible to expand forever without eventually consuming ourselves. Isn't that what a cancer is? Out of control growth that strangles and chokes the host body?

Is it not time that we change how we measure success and failure? Some things should grow, while other things are too big already. In order to grow some things, we need to divert resources away from other, perhaps more important things.

Economic growth statistics measure how much things we produce. If we sacrifice producing things and instead produce free public amenities that would make our quality of life better, it might reduce our economic growth, but wouldn't it make for a better country to live in?

The Chinese decided to subtract the cost of their pollution from their GDP and suddenly it became more like low single digits. Given that low single digits is where the West is now, what would happen if we factored in pollution?

[zakalwe]

well seeing as how you can buy a tonne of emissions on the emissions market at about 10c per tonne, probably not much...

our pollution tends to be of the carbon variety, not lead mercury or heavy metals.

[Auditor #9]

We should redefine work while we're at it. Education should become more of a priority - lifelong learning. I think I've still got a couple of degrees and at least a masters if not a doctorate left in me yet. How am I gonna get around to doing them if I have to continue working for a living?

[Pax]

Here's a similar article
It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both

Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change


There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.