Comments on Elizaphanian
Sam, I am a big fan of Malthus (how ironic). I agree with much of what you are saying if you are referring to physical elements of growth, such as numbers of people, or of physical resources consumed, e.g. miles travelled/fishes caught/emissions.
This argument does not automatically transfer to a critique of economic growth, which is merely the change in the sum of what we value. It is what we value that is important (as you say). So if we as a society we value newer/flatter/HD TVs and replace them quicker and quicker, and take more flying foreigh holidays each year, then growth is harmful. But if we value water conservation and lower energy use, and the govt regulates to achieve this, then there will be economic growth in the construction sector connected with the high cost of achieving these changes. Similarly, if we increasingly value local fresher better quality food then there will be economic growth to reflect this. (well there should be, but actually the measure is probably too crude to pick it up!).
I think David Cameron got some of this right when he suggested replacing GDP with a 'quality of life' index.
So although I was initially sceptical of this talk about a low-carbon revolution, i.e. powering growth through green-tech, I think it could be a step in the right direction. i.e. the right kind of growth.
Yes. Sort of. Although it's too hot right now to argue.
Zero growth is going to be harder to achieve than stopping climate change - we could do that right away, we have the technology. But it's less urgent.
Heather - More on the questions you ask - there aren't any real answers, as yet, can be found here:
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
...owth_report.pdf
Heather yes, I'm talking about physical 'stuff' (which also involves activity, ie use of energy). There is no limit to human creativity, and there is all sorts of "growth" that can be pursued there - but that's so different to industrial capitalism that I think it gets misleading to lump them together.
Al, zero growth will be achieved whether we want it or not; it's just a question of how adaptable we are going to be.
Sam. Fair point. Sloppy language. It's very hot here.
I should have said that the transisition to zero growth will be harder.
I kind of go along with Heather in that growth is not the problem (in fact creativity is such a fundamental human attribute that we simply can't stop it) it's the areas of our activity on this planet that we choose to invest in and grow that are at issue here. In fact I'd go as far as to say that zero growth (or inertia if you will) presents more of a threat. With reference to the advertising industry's part in this...one of the things that the transition movement (and the 'greens' in general) do lamentably badly at the present is connect with people in any great numbers at all. If anybody needs the services of the ad. industry at the moment it's them! In fact I read in Rob Hopkins' blog a while back that he went to New York to lecture on transition culture and 8 people turned up http://transitionculture.org/2008/12/ ...these people need to embrace some of the techniques and ideas of the 'evil' advertisers if any growth at all is to be made in this direction.
Sam:
Would you accept as reasonable that overconsumption isn't synonymous with "overpopulation"? Here's why I ask. Although here in the former colonies the population has been levelling off quite dramatically, consumption has, if anything, been growing: fewer people consuming more and more stuff each -- like an anorexic or bulemic society. The challenge to the Indians and the Chinese (inter alia) is to "develop" without having to consume at such a tremendous rate. The challenge to the West is to consume less, even when population does eventually rebound.
Chris: yes. Whilst I wouldn't go all the way with your analysis, I do think that 'overpopulation' as such is a red herring in environmental conversations, and is often a cloak for a misanthropic world-view.
Hurrah, glad to see you've caught up with these faddy issues as being secondary to the big one 
I would even say that "limits to growth" is secondary to the more basic "how do we decide" any global issues "democratically" when we individually and collectively can only have limited understanding of how such complex issues really work.
Education and knowlwdge are good, but the answer clearly cannot be that we all have to fully understand the complexity of every such issue.
Ian, if you look through my LUBH material you'll see that I think the limits to growth stuff is a secondary issue too - in the end - but I don't see how the global decision making process is any more ultimate. How should we live? That's the question (Phaedrus)!
How we should live IS that decision. Doh !
Answers to questions ARE decisions.
But we are not an island so the individual answer is tied up with the collective answer and our preferred versions of democratic governance (of our decisions concerning those how shall we live questions and answers)
(Of course I know your position, don't you recognize smilies and scare quotes ? .... lighten up
I should just add more smileys...
Sam, I'm with you all the way here.
Commenting by HaloScan
