Re: [Pen-l] Growing a better world

[Sandwichman <lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gar,

"An economy" refers to an extremely eclectic collection of things and activities, some of which are measurable and some of which are not. Even those things that are measurable do not abide by the rule that "more is better". To say that an economy grows is to imply, at least in principle, a degree of quantifiability that is at best unrealistic and at worst misleading. To say, furthermore, than an economy, in toto,  SHOULD grow (or, for that matter should shrink) is to attach a value judgment to the measurement of something that can't be measured and to compel the use of proxy measures.

We know that what is currently being measured, GDP, contains an enormous amount of waste. We also know that a great deal of the GDP growth of the past 30 years has been growth of waste. We don't know exactly how much because that measurement would be hard to come by. I can envision no scenario where real progress in addressing environmental or social problems REQUIRES growth of GDP. But, by the same token, I don't see any reason why GDP growth would always have to be anathema to environmental or social progress.

Admittedly, growth and prosperity may similar connotations in popular usage. But growth has a more explicitly quantitative dimension. If something grows, it gets bigger. If someone prospers, he or she does well. Of course one can talk about spiritual growth or whatever. People used to try to finesse the quantitative implication of growth with the term "development," as in sustainable development but that eventually came to mean growth -- sustained growth!

Frankly, I share with you a sense of awkwardness about the "without growth" meme. But I don't think the way past that is to get tangled up with some sort of purified notion of growth. In fact, I think the way forward involves a completely different narrative than the growth/no growth one. Furthermore, it requires a narrative that has a well-established tradition, even if the continuity of that tradition hasn't been noticed before. 

I am arguing that the tradition exists in the form of a discourse on leisure in the industrial age. It seems to me highly significant that the growth imperative is but an episode in that longer narrative.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Sandwichman<lumpoflabor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sandwichman's reply to Gar (posted as comment at Grist),
>
> http://www.grist.org/article/growing-a-better-world/
>
> Confusion arises between growth and waste because in the propaganda of the
> consumption-driven profit system "Growth" is the brand name for waste. When
> you call a ballastic missle "the Peacemaker" it is still a ballistic missle.
> To differentiate between growth and waste would require a different
> conception of economic growth than now prevails. In the currently prevailing
> model, reducing the work week and increasing leisure is very explicitly NOT
> growth. In the current model it is shrinkage. Opponents of growth oppose the
> current model. They oppose the model that defines waste as growth.

But that makes redefining growth rather than conceding that waste is
growth the better, and also the more radical alternative (in the sense
of getting to the roots or fundamentals ).

> Redefining growth requires more than some tweaking and tinkering. Humpty
> Dumpty said that when he uses a word it means exactly what he wants it to
> mean. It's no use arguing with Humpty Dumpty over what he wants the word
> growth to mean. And it's rather pointless to blame the opponents of waste
> for the confusion between waste and growth.

But really that applies to the technical term GDP more than to the
informal term "Growth". I think you will find that in popular usage
"growth" is used as a synonym for a better life as it is as synonymn
for GDP. Heck, when you talk about "Prosperity without growth" you are
also redefining a term that often is used as synonym for GDP.  If you
are not conceding the word "prosperity" to the other side, then why
concede the term "growth"? I think part of the reason is that the
dispute is NOT just a sterile dispute over choice of terms. I think
there is a real disagreement somewhere in there.  I'm not 100% sure
what it is. I don't think it is over the need for a radical
transformation of the human created portion of our physical world. We
need  to modify our buildings, our factories, our transportation, our
farms, and greatly reduce our interventions in forests and wilderness.
 I suspect that the dispute is not in the need for this radical
transformation, but the nature of that transformation. I'm not sure
exactly what that dispute is, but seems to be implicitly there.

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

-- 
Sandwichman
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l