10 ms·

Clinging Desperately to a Metaphor (2011)

158 points by lcam84 5y ago

nickdothutton 5y ago
Reminds me a little of Goldsmith’s “what is the purpose of an economy?”. First few minutes set out the argument. https://youtu.be/RowLyW5X52A https://youtu.be/RowLyW5X52A
sgt101 5y ago
The big concern that I have for an economy without growth is that it becomes a zero sum game. Collaboration is a strong method of keeping the peace, without growth there seems a reduced incentive for collaboration.
- k__ 5y ago
  Like the quote in the beginning says, growth is good, but only when it improves the life of the people.
  - andi999 5y ago
    And didn't get the life of the people improved? Maybe the US is an exception but on a global scale globalization lifted a lot of people out of poverty. (need to look at data for the US though, but still if you compare life of a worker at Steinbecks 'grapes of wrath' time to today's workers, today is still better, isn't it) I found: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N 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)
- lcam84 5y ago
  Sadly I think that the battle for resources will be more detrimental to peace than the reduction of collaboration. Collaboration will be more localized, but I hope our ability to communicate globally will maintain peace. Yet I may be too optimistic here.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  It also doesn't imho make for a more equal society. The worse an economy is the more the rich seem to profit from it compared to the rest of society. Zero sum games I feel favor those with established power bases much more so than those without them.
- r-bryan 5y ago
  I don't see why zero-growth has to be zero-sum. 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.
smitty1e 5y ago
> As a result of uncontrolled economic (and population) growth, our ecology is sick, and getting sicker every day. 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.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Yes, I suspect that if we let the power-hungry types control the world even more than today, we may get an even worse dystopia. "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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
nickthemagicman 5y ago
I think one difference between liberal minded and conservative-minded people is their version of the future. 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.
- mnsc 5y ago
  > 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.
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    Capitalism can be controlled. Eg in China they permit capitalistic enterprises if it is deemed to "benefit the state or people". They also don't permit private enterprise to run the banking system.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Theres short-term growth and long-term growth. 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.
mark_l_watson 5y ago
I am more or less with her on this, and not just because I like her writing (and her audio book narration of her treatment of “Lao-Tzu: Tao Te Ching” is beyond wonderful). 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.
- MikeTaylor 5y ago
  > 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. Yes, it was great how that incident ushered in a new age of shared economic prosperity and political rationality.
  - mark_l_watson 5y ago
    Mike, sarcasm aside, I really think that it helped. Have we seen as progress as we want? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t try. Agree?
    - Synaesthesia 5y ago
      Absolutely. Being passive is exactly what people in power want us to do. It's not going to be an easy struggle.
      - secondaryacct 5y ago
MarcPereira 5y ago
May the solution be to live like the people on Anarris, then.
- mmustapic 5y ago
  Anarres. And their way of life was not a choice, but their only possibility to survive.
marcinzm 5y ago
US economic growth is much much lower than it was 50 or 70 years ago. Population growth is also lower. If we're pointing out modern issues like the rich getting richer then I feel the correlation is with LOWER economic growth causing it rather than HIGHER economic growth. Once it becomes closer to a zero-sum game the rich have an advantage. Ecological damage goes the other way since it's harder to grow quickly with environmental restrictions.
- rezendi 5y ago
  This really depends on how you look at it. On an absolute inflation-adjusted dollars-per-person-per-year basis, rather than a relative / percentage basis, GDP growth over the last decade has been substantially higher than that of the 1950s. Even 2% of $55,000 is still greater than 7% of $15,000... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA
FeepingCreature 5y ago
As far as I'm concerned, the optimal size of the economy is when everyone can have everything they want. Until then, there's work to do.
- ekelsen 5y ago
  No matter how big the economy gets not everyone can have the best real estate. There will be always be locations that are preferable to others and no amount of growth will change this.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I suspect this will be fulfilled by improved transportation.
    - ekelsen 5y ago
      Improved transportation won't get you the choicest pieces of real estate because you still won't be allowed there. It will make the public places even more crowded perhaps. Some of what expensive real estate buys you is the _lack_ of other people.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        If you're out in the boonies, you can have lack of other people for miles. What you won't have is easy access to the nearest city. Transportation solves that.
        ekelsen 5y ago
        You also won't have a nice coastline view. Money buys lack of other people in locations where lots of other people want to be.
- danparsonson 5y ago
  But the point is that increasing it does not improve life for everyone, only those at the top. The idea of "trickle down" economics is a (frankly laughable) fallacy.
isoprophlex 5y ago
In medicine, you'd call unbounded growth a tumor. I'd say our desire for ever growing economies acts as a tumors towards the environment...
projectileboy 5y ago
Growth can manifest itself as a rising standard of living for everyone (albeit unequal). I’m pro-growth, but I do agree with the notion that if we want humans to survive for multiple millennia, we need to foster a much more holistic idea of growth (which includes waste, resource consumption, environmental damage, human well-being, etc).
kweinber 5y ago
I’m not a proponent for endless growth, but the metaphor is fraught. An economy is not a single animal, it is a collective…. And collectives/herds/packs in nature grow to the limits of their resources (or create more collectives), just like human economies do. Often to the point of resource exhaustion and colony collapse. I hope there is a better way to maintain an economy, but nature isn’t a great inspiration.
nickelpro 5y ago
We already have enough poems, more poems than any person can read in a single lifetime. And they already cover every possible subject, life, death, love, war, poverty, whatever subject you prefer. 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Economic growth can be equitably distributed, as it was in the western world up.to the 70's, and has been in China. Of course GDP says nothing about the way wealth is distributed that's why you have to look at where the growth goes. There's no iron law which says that growth 'has' to go to the top 10%
streamofdigits 5y ago
Its hard to imagine a calm, reasonable, informed person with any degree of empathy reading this depressingly eloquent piece and not agreeing, at least with its broad outlines. 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.
- lcam84 5y ago
  And yet there was a systemic change last year. The system objective changed from brainless growth to saving human lives, and the Jenga game holded. I don't want to romanticize the pandemic but it disproved the TINA hipotesis (there is no alternative) As Donella Meadows pointed out [1], the most powerful leverage point is to change the objective of the system. We can make it if we start to be citizens and be involved politically. Let’s be involved in movements like extinction rebellion and Fridays for the future. And most of all let's question growth and employment as the goal of society. [1] http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_...
  - streamofdigits 5y ago
    yes, love this point. the pandemic revealed so many things, mostly damning. but it was also a loud assertion of the primacy of life, an instinctive collective behavior that was so profound and universal it went almost unnoticed. maybe we are ashamed of admitting it as it invalidates all those other behaviors. 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.
davidivadavid 5y ago
Not that there's no valid discussion to have about growth as an objective per se, but this is a particularly weak rebuttal that hinges on a narrow definition of (material) growth. Economic growth is first and foremost about the value of economic exchanges. Not about the amount of stuff we make.
- lcam84 5y ago
  Gross Domestic Product, is a very gross way to measure progress as the name implies. 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. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0
  - posterboy 5y ago
    that's not what the name implies. Gross simply means large or super, as in Super-Market or in Bulk-Sale. Originally it has also meant rough. In English it still does, but formerly in a sense of coarse, and I guess in this case especially rigid. > ... 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 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?
    - lcam84 5y ago
      As Ursula Le Guin, I'm not an economist, but I live in one. Didn't mean to be literal, but I find ironic the use of the term, because it reminds me of rough which in portuguese, my native language is "Grosseiro"
bsedlm 5y ago
I consider it another mistake to expect any alternatives to be fully formed (or well described) and complete in any sense. 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).
mmarq 5y ago
Yet again another person with no background in economics that argues against growth. 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.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Had you read even the first few lines, you'd see she anticipated and addressed your points. Failing to acknowledge this points to a reading comprehension deficiency.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    The first few lines: > 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”
xyzelement 5y ago
The question I ask when I hear "we shouldn't grow past where we are now" is - would this person make this claim just as well 20 years ago? 100? 1000? 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.
- lcam84 5y ago
  Yes, by any measure - infant mortality, safety from war, education, access to culture, etc - we have never been better but all evidence suggests that our lifestyles are not sustainable. IPCC says that there will be an environmental collapse in the next years if we do not change and green Growth is not enough [1]. It’s like if we are in a modern, comfortable and fast car. We can argue that we have never been better but it’s not the case if there is no road ahead of us. https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/upload...
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    Yeah I hear you - but my question is, could someone make the same argument at any previous times? In the past there was ozone layer problems, peak oil worries, global cooling, etc. I think you could always have said "no it's gonna get really bad now" if you ignore human history of evolving its way past problems that loom at it. In my experience, our growth has motivated a lot of these things.
citizen16670 5y ago
Hitler, who disliked Capitalism because he thought it was an economic scheme through which the Jew squeezed the world economy, also believed in shrinking markets. His solution was autarky achieved though centrally controlled economy in which the state directed private production through subsidizes and regulated purchasing. That's why he started a war. The author should stick to poetry.
mcguire 5y ago
In reply, one question: "Is your population growing?" If your population is growing and your economy isn't, somebody is having problems.
- lcam84 5y ago
  This would be true if we didn't account for the extreme inequality of the system. 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-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
  - mcguire 5y ago
    That's actually a separate problem. Or rather, two separate problems: Inequality of growth, and externalized costs of growth.
ryandrake 5y ago
> From 2000 to 2007 (the last period of economic growth before the current recession) the richest 10% of Americans received 100% (one hundred percent—all) the average growth of income. The other 90% received none. 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-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
Barrin92 5y ago
>"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." 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. [1]https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
inglor_cz 5y ago
I love UKL's prose, but her clinging to a metaphor between biological and economic growth seems to me too desperate. Those two things aren't the same, even if they accidentally use the same word. (And I think that is the root of the inaccuracy: writers love words and are enthralled to them.) 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.

158 points by lcam84 5y ago

Reminds me a little of Goldsmith’s “what is the purpose of an economy?”. First few minutes set out the argument. https://youtu.be/RowLyW5X52A https://youtu.be/RowLyW5X52A

sgt101 5y ago

The big concern that I have for an economy without growth is that it becomes a zero sum game. Collaboration is a strong method of keeping the peace, without growth there seems a reduced incentive for collaboration.

k__ 5y ago
Like the quote in the beginning says, growth is good, but only when it improves the life of the people.
- andi999 5y ago
  And didn't get the life of the people improved? Maybe the US is an exception but on a global scale globalization lifted a lot of people out of poverty. (need to look at data for the US though, but still if you compare life of a worker at Steinbecks 'grapes of wrath' time to today's workers, today is still better, isn't it) I found: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N 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)
lcam84 5y ago
Sadly I think that the battle for resources will be more detrimental to peace than the reduction of collaboration. Collaboration will be more localized, but I hope our ability to communicate globally will maintain peace. Yet I may be too optimistic here.
marcinzm 5y ago
It also doesn't imho make for a more equal society. The worse an economy is the more the rich seem to profit from it compared to the rest of society. Zero sum games I feel favor those with established power bases much more so than those without them.
r-bryan 5y ago
I don't see why zero-growth has to be zero-sum. 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.

smitty1e 5y ago

> As a result of uncontrolled economic (and population) growth, our ecology is sick, and getting sicker every day. 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.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Yes, I suspect that if we let the power-hungry types control the world even more than today, we may get an even worse dystopia. "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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

nickthemagicman 5y ago

I think one difference between liberal minded and conservative-minded people is their version of the future. 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.

mnsc 5y ago
> 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.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Capitalism can be controlled. Eg in China they permit capitalistic enterprises if it is deemed to "benefit the state or people". They also don't permit private enterprise to run the banking system.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Theres short-term growth and long-term growth. 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.

mark_l_watson 5y ago

I am more or less with her on this, and not just because I like her writing (and her audio book narration of her treatment of “Lao-Tzu: Tao Te Ching” is beyond wonderful). 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.

MikeTaylor 5y ago
> 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. Yes, it was great how that incident ushered in a new age of shared economic prosperity and political rationality.
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Mike, sarcasm aside, I really think that it helped. Have we seen as progress as we want? Of course not, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t try. Agree?
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    Absolutely. Being passive is exactly what people in power want us to do. It's not going to be an easy struggle.
    - secondaryacct 5y ago

MarcPereira 5y ago

May the solution be to live like the people on Anarris, then.

mmustapic 5y ago
Anarres. And their way of life was not a choice, but their only possibility to survive.

marcinzm 5y ago

US economic growth is much much lower than it was 50 or 70 years ago. Population growth is also lower. If we're pointing out modern issues like the rich getting richer then I feel the correlation is with LOWER economic growth causing it rather than HIGHER economic growth. Once it becomes closer to a zero-sum game the rich have an advantage. Ecological damage goes the other way since it's harder to grow quickly with environmental restrictions.

rezendi 5y ago
This really depends on how you look at it. On an absolute inflation-adjusted dollars-per-person-per-year basis, rather than a relative / percentage basis, GDP growth over the last decade has been substantially higher than that of the 1950s. Even 2% of $55,000 is still greater than 7% of $15,000... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYGDPPCAPKDUSA

FeepingCreature 5y ago

As far as I'm concerned, the optimal size of the economy is when everyone can have everything they want. Until then, there's work to do.

ekelsen 5y ago
No matter how big the economy gets not everyone can have the best real estate. There will be always be locations that are preferable to others and no amount of growth will change this.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  I suspect this will be fulfilled by improved transportation.
  - ekelsen 5y ago
    Improved transportation won't get you the choicest pieces of real estate because you still won't be allowed there. It will make the public places even more crowded perhaps. Some of what expensive real estate buys you is the _lack_ of other people.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      If you're out in the boonies, you can have lack of other people for miles. What you won't have is easy access to the nearest city. Transportation solves that.
      - ekelsen 5y ago
        You also won't have a nice coastline view. Money buys lack of other people in locations where lots of other people want to be.
danparsonson 5y ago
But the point is that increasing it does not improve life for everyone, only those at the top. The idea of "trickle down" economics is a (frankly laughable) fallacy.

isoprophlex 5y ago

In medicine, you'd call unbounded growth a tumor. I'd say our desire for ever growing economies acts as a tumors towards the environment...

projectileboy 5y ago

Growth can manifest itself as a rising standard of living for everyone (albeit unequal). I’m pro-growth, but I do agree with the notion that if we want humans to survive for multiple millennia, we need to foster a much more holistic idea of growth (which includes waste, resource consumption, environmental damage, human well-being, etc).

kweinber 5y ago

I’m not a proponent for endless growth, but the metaphor is fraught. An economy is not a single animal, it is a collective…. And collectives/herds/packs in nature grow to the limits of their resources (or create more collectives), just like human economies do. Often to the point of resource exhaustion and colony collapse. I hope there is a better way to maintain an economy, but nature isn’t a great inspiration.

nickelpro 5y ago

We already have enough poems, more poems than any person can read in a single lifetime. And they already cover every possible subject, life, death, love, war, poverty, whatever subject you prefer. 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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Economic growth can be equitably distributed, as it was in the western world up.to the 70's, and has been in China. Of course GDP says nothing about the way wealth is distributed that's why you have to look at where the growth goes. There's no iron law which says that growth 'has' to go to the top 10%

streamofdigits 5y ago

Its hard to imagine a calm, reasonable, informed person with any degree of empathy reading this depressingly eloquent piece and not agreeing, at least with its broad outlines. 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.

lcam84 5y ago
And yet there was a systemic change last year. The system objective changed from brainless growth to saving human lives, and the Jenga game holded. I don't want to romanticize the pandemic but it disproved the TINA hipotesis (there is no alternative) As Donella Meadows pointed out [1], the most powerful leverage point is to change the objective of the system. We can make it if we start to be citizens and be involved politically. Let’s be involved in movements like extinction rebellion and Fridays for the future. And most of all let's question growth and employment as the goal of society. [1] http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_...
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  yes, love this point. the pandemic revealed so many things, mostly damning. but it was also a loud assertion of the primacy of life, an instinctive collective behavior that was so profound and universal it went almost unnoticed. maybe we are ashamed of admitting it as it invalidates all those other behaviors. 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.

davidivadavid 5y ago

Not that there's no valid discussion to have about growth as an objective per se, but this is a particularly weak rebuttal that hinges on a narrow definition of (material) growth. Economic growth is first and foremost about the value of economic exchanges. Not about the amount of stuff we make.

lcam84 5y ago
Gross Domestic Product, is a very gross way to measure progress as the name implies. 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. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FAmr1la6w0
- posterboy 5y ago
  that's not what the name implies. Gross simply means large or super, as in Super-Market or in Bulk-Sale. Originally it has also meant rough. In English it still does, but formerly in a sense of coarse, and I guess in this case especially rigid. > ... 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 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?
  - lcam84 5y ago
    As Ursula Le Guin, I'm not an economist, but I live in one. Didn't mean to be literal, but I find ironic the use of the term, because it reminds me of rough which in portuguese, my native language is "Grosseiro"

bsedlm 5y ago

I consider it another mistake to expect any alternatives to be fully formed (or well described) and complete in any sense. 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).

mmarq 5y ago

Yet again another person with no background in economics that argues against growth. 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.

mandmandam 5y ago
Had you read even the first few lines, you'd see she anticipated and addressed your points. Failing to acknowledge this points to a reading comprehension deficiency.
- mmarq 5y ago
  The first few lines: > 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”

xyzelement 5y ago

The question I ask when I hear "we shouldn't grow past where we are now" is - would this person make this claim just as well 20 years ago? 100? 1000? 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.

lcam84 5y ago
Yes, by any measure - infant mortality, safety from war, education, access to culture, etc - we have never been better but all evidence suggests that our lifestyles are not sustainable. IPCC says that there will be an environmental collapse in the next years if we do not change and green Growth is not enough [1]. It’s like if we are in a modern, comfortable and fast car. We can argue that we have never been better but it’s not the case if there is no road ahead of us. https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/upload...
- xyzelement 5y ago
  Yeah I hear you - but my question is, could someone make the same argument at any previous times? In the past there was ozone layer problems, peak oil worries, global cooling, etc. I think you could always have said "no it's gonna get really bad now" if you ignore human history of evolving its way past problems that loom at it. In my experience, our growth has motivated a lot of these things.

citizen16670 5y ago

Hitler, who disliked Capitalism because he thought it was an economic scheme through which the Jew squeezed the world economy, also believed in shrinking markets. His solution was autarky achieved though centrally controlled economy in which the state directed private production through subsidizes and regulated purchasing. That's why he started a war. The author should stick to poetry.

mcguire 5y ago

In reply, one question: "Is your population growing?" If your population is growing and your economy isn't, somebody is having problems.

lcam84 5y ago
This would be true if we didn't account for the extreme inequality of the system. 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-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...
- mcguire 5y ago
  That's actually a separate problem. Or rather, two separate problems: Inequality of growth, and externalized costs of growth.

ryandrake 5y ago

> From 2000 to 2007 (the last period of economic growth before the current recession) the richest 10% of Americans received 100% (one hundred percent—all) the average growth of income. The other 90% received none. 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-owns-stock.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...

Barrin92 5y ago

>"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." 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. [1]https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

inglor_cz 5y ago

I love UKL's prose, but her clinging to a metaphor between biological and economic growth seems to me too desperate. Those two things aren't the same, even if they accidentally use the same word. (And I think that is the root of the inaccuracy: writers love words and are enthralled to them.) 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.