The Parallel Universe Problem
Is a Sustainable Economy Possible?
- Six Environmental and Economic Leaders Weigh In.
Can we have an economy based on limitless growth on a planet with finite space and resources? Can we maintain adequate employment, material security, and prosperity while simultaneously protecting habitats and resources for all living things?
These questions are central to the work of New American Dream. I have been struck by the competing worldviews of scientists and economists - the former calling for dramatic reductions in growth and the latter urging steady increases. While their definitions of growth differ, financial growth and material growth are closely paired in our economy. Meanwhile, there are countless examples of profit-driven industries causing environmental damage, whether it is a demand for iron ore spurring the development of new mines or the real estate boom rapidly displacing wildlife habitats. Not all growth is bad, but should conventional economic wisdom continue to insist that all growth is good?
A growing number of leaders from all sectors are rethinking our vision for a healthy global economy. Too often, this subject is simply taboo. Those who challenge growth and consumption are perceived as members of the "Flat Earth Society" at best, or anti- American radicals at worst. There is little political space for having this conversation with a genuine spirit of inquiry.
I recently asked several leaders to weigh in on this critical issue. Short excerpts of their views follow.
- Betsy Taylor
New American Dream President
Dianne Dumanoski
I've been exploring what I call "the parallel universe problem." It
continues to be virtually impossible to get dire environmental trends
data and bullish projections on continuing exponential economic
growth into the same conversation. It typically appears that
economic and environmental forecasts are talking about different
planets. The ultimate reason is incompatible operating assumptions
and conceptual blindness. Economists who speak about limits (such as
Herman Daly) are marginalized as heretics, because they challenge the
fundamental assumptions of the discipline.
Is there any bigger elephant in the room than the question of projected exponential growth on a planet that is showing increasing signs of dangerous systemic instability? And if our current economic system cannot maintain itself without continuing growth, then what?
The current system seems in danger of crashing and burning every time consumption falters in the slightest. Even prominent environmentalists dance around the growth question, apparently for fear of being dismissed as irrelevant crazies.
My suggestion would be to focus on the question of the taboo itself. Why is the question of growth and limits a political and intellectual third rail too dangerous to touch? Instead of aiming to transcend from inside the question, step outside for a while and examine it as a deep cultural matter. What's at stake when one questions growth?
Almost everything, it appears. As the historian J.R. McNeill notes in Something New Under the Sun, growth was the organizing ideology in the 20th century for capitalists and socialists, Democrats and Republicans. It is also closely tied to science, progress, and modern identity. The imperative might also be linked to the surge in world population, which is now slowing. What assumptions allow economists to believe exponential growth is possible on a finite planet? Do these assumptions withstand scrutiny or are we in the realm of true faith and technological deliverance?
And why do many prominent mainstream liberals appear oblivious to the question of physical limits? You can't find solutions if it is too dangerous to even ask the question. The future begins with truth telling.
Dianne Dumanoski is co-author of Our Stolen Future. She has reported on national and global environmental issues for The Boston Globe and was a recipient of the prestigious Knight Fellowship in Science Journalism at MIT.
Paul Hawken
I think the debate has to be broken down into components because when
it is set as a dialectic - growth versus no growth - it creates
misunderstandings and resentment in the global South and in
communities of the localized poor.
The economy must grow in order to provide the majority of the world and the next 2-3 billion people with decent housing, healthcare, education, and quality of life. Anything less than that is unacceptable and dangerous to the world as a whole. There are subsets of the question that come to mind: How can needed growth occur with the least impact on living systems; at what point does economic growth become parasitic and erosive to well-being in mature economies; can we imagine a "growing economy" that restores our cities, soils, and living systems rather than degrades them; is there an economic "draw-down" scenario that allows for a transition while gradually eliminating material and energy intensity? Growth is constant and imperative in nature, but it occurs in overall thermodynamic equilibrium, generally speaking. Inside that approximate energetic balance, there is a riot of change, differentiation, and development.
It would seem that we want to imagine an economy where inherent checks and balances (or feedback loops) allow the greatest level of initiative, innovation, and freedom. In nature, the feedback loops are inescapable. Feedback is inescapable in economic systems too, but can be deferred and ignored for a long time. Environmentalists represent that part of society that can see the deferrals clearly. What is missing is the willingness to construct, on a systems basis, the means to "grow" up and out of this problem. We can absolutely create an economy that grows while heading towards equilibrium.
Paul Hawken is an environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and best-selling author who has addressed the topic of business and the environment for more than 20 years. He writes and teaches about the impact of commerce on the environment and consults with governments and corporations on economic development, industrial ecology, and environmental policy. He is author and co-author of six books and has founded or co-founded several companies. He presently heads the Natural Capital Institute.
Julie Schor
In economic theory, the problem that we are concerned about does not
exist. It's a strange paradox that the profession that has done the
most to push the growth mentality has a model which says a society
can maximize its well-being with any growth rate, including zero. So
it's hard to fit this question into the frameworks economists work
with. The "maximize growth" mantra appears at the level of applied
economics, rather than theory. This is part of why it's difficult to
get economists to engage with it.
That having been said, the profession has mainly accepted the idea that higher income yields higher well-being. I believe more economists are willing to question this than they were some years ago. Why? Partly because there's more research on it, partly because literature on the intersection of psychology and economics points to it, and partly out of common sense as they observe American society. Answering the question takes us into the realms of psychology and sociology and out of economics, which has rarely gone beyond taking this relationship as an assumption (rather than a topic to be studied).
Juliet Schor is Professor of Sociology at Boston College, a best- selling author, and a founding Board Member of the Center for a New American Dream. Her newest book, Born to Buy, explores marketing to children and will be released in paperback this October.
Mark Barden
America just will not be able to hear a "no growth" message. But it
may be able to hear a "pro-growth" message that redefines the terms.
Don't we all want "growth" conceptually? Growth is good. It's what
living things do. It's the key to alive- ness. But some growth -
like cancer - can be damaging. And some growth - like my infant
daughter's weight - is good. People understand this, don't they? So "good growth" might be a more useful way to frame it.
One example at election time was the Apollo Project proposing massive growth in alternative fuels, because it provided growth in jobs and technological leadership, as well as oil independence and peace, potentially. But it was primarily a pro-growth message.
I would have economists dream up five more of these scenarios that can form a really robust Agenda for Growth, but is a natural step in the direction you want to see things go. Another example might be the growth of local economies - where we're saying "consume away," just buy local stuff please. Again, it's easier for people to hear, digest, and act on, but a step in the right direction.
Mark Barden is an international marketing consultant specializing in "challenger" brands - plucky #2 and #3 players in the market who need to do more with less. His clients include Unilever, PepsiCo, and Kodak. He believes that sustainability is the ultimate challenger issue and that business is slowly awakening to the idea.
John de Graaf
Trading money and stuff for time is the only real long-term solution
and perhaps the one way to sell the idea of reduced consumption to a
public enamored of growth. So far we've made sustainability seem
like a sacrifice when in fact it could provide people with the time
to live freely, build relationships and community, and reduce stress.
We simply must offer this solution if we want to begin to reduce our
ecological footprints - technological fixes will not do it long-term,
and the sooner we promote the message of lowered consumption as the
goose that can lay the golden egg of time, the better.
John de Graaf is the founder of Take Back Your Time Day, a member of the Simplicity Forum, producer of the successful PBS Series Affluenza, and the author of Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic.
Arthur G. Powers
How can we create a sustainable economy without excess consumerism
and growth?
Certainly such an economy will require new indicators and new (or perhaps ancient, revived) myths. Countries can no longer be judged on gross domestic product. Different standards need to be established as to what constitutes successful governance and successful society. The idea that economics (in the narrow, money sense of the word) should be the predominant socio-political value is a relatively new one. Societies can be (and have been) structured to give greater honor to many other things - generosity, wisdom, keeping one's word, commitment, altruism, artistic achievement, frugality, workmanship, solidarity.
Corporations will have to be completely rethought. We might look at what some consider the origins of multinational corporations - great religious orders such as the Benedictines who assured livelihood and an organizational structure to their members and were tremendously productive. When the livelihood and belonging of members is secured, an organization such as the religious orders can free up tremendous person power in a way that is flexible enough to change with changing needs. People who do not depend on a certain function to meet their needs do not create the barriers to the constructive adaptation which is needed to help society become more sustainable.
Short- and middle-range steps could be taken toward a lower- consumption society. This is already beginning through movements that stress the freedom that relative simplicity can bring to one's life. Measures that require businesses to internalize the ecological and social costs they create would be vital; again, this is already beginning on a small scale via government regulation and suits (e.g., making tobacco companies responsible for medical costs, bars responsible for drunken drivers, gun companies responsible for irresponsible sales). Advertising to children should be restricted. Consumerism, rather than being promoted as necessary to the economy, should be exposed as the pathetic, addictive, superficial syndrome that it is.
On another front, there is increasing consensus that small-scale agriculture is both more productive per hectare and potentially more sustainable than large scale commercial agriculture - and it can be a major livelihood provider. Beyond its own importance, this raises an interesting idea - of focusing on quality, small-scale production - returning to artisans and valuing hand-made items, as well as quality services.
Arthur G. Powers first moved to Brazil as a community organizer with the Peace Corps in 1969. He and his wife subsequently directed relief and development projects in the arid Brazilian Northeast. Currently Mr. Powers is General Counsel for a company installing an air traffic and environmental monitoring system for the Amazon and is a Ph.D. candidate in Natural Resources Policy at the University of New Hampshire.