Ch. 1 - After Growth

Chris OConnor · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject: Ch. 1 - After Growth

Ch. 1 - After Growth

Please use this thread for discussing the 1st chapter of Deep Economy, which is entitled After Growth. If you would rather create your own threads feel free to do so.

These chapter threads are only meant as a convenient structure for those members that appreciate or enjoy a structured book discussion. ::44

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: More is not always Better

Mckibben argues that our current economic system is destructively fixated on growth. He describes three fundamental challenges to the dominant paradigm that "more is better":

1. Political: economic growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more insecurity/instability than progress.

2. Physics/Chemistry: we do not have the energy needed to continue growing and neither do we have the space to store the resultant pollutants.

3. Psychological: this unprecedented economic growth is not making us happier.

Even with all of this stuff, we have relatively little to show for it; our planet can not sustain the process; and it really doesn't make us any happier after all. Ulitmately, McKibben argues, we can no longer reduce the essence of our economic decision making to: what course of action will bring me more?

Thus the title, Deep Economy (taken from the environmentalist movement Deep Ecology ) as an attempt to ask beyond the surface of mere accumulation and delve deeper into the values and meaning that motivate everyday choices of production and consumption. Deep Economy is one way to envision an economic system that takes seriously the combination of human satisfaction, social durability and ecological sustainability.

Loricat · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

Still waiting on my book. [have distinct feelings of bookal envy]

But can't help think that a good companion volume to this discussion might be Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety. In it, he tries to address the root causes of our need for more, our need to be bigger than we are...and ways of overcoming that need.

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

I also saw this today and it interested me.

Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole

I presented the idea a while back to have "TOPIC" discussions, as opposed to sinlge book discussions...this way we can bring different opinions in to the mix and people who might have other sources would feel more inclined to participate even if they do not like a particular book choice.

Mr. P.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 4/9/07 3:43 pm

Loricat · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

Mr. P -- I'm with you. I think this book discussion is going to be more about where the book leads us than the book itself.

Ooo...as discussion leader, do I get to make these kinds of executive decisions?!? ::59

I say let's go ahead, and post to the chapters, but also to over-arching themes as they come up.

Power. I love it! ::04

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

I suppose each participant gets to decide how they wish to participate. We have the chapter threads simply as a guideline, but it is completely acceptable to branch off and create side discussions about anything related to the book. Nobody should feel obligated to remain within the chapter thread structure.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

loricat: Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety. In it, he tries to address the root causes of our need for more, our need to be bigger than we are...and ways of overcoming that need.

Making sense of the eco-damaging and self-destructive drive for more is certainly key to McKiben's book. McKibben asks

Quote:
On the list of important mistakes we've made as a species, this one seems pretty high up. A single minded focus on increasing wealth has driven the planet's ecological systems to the brink of failure, without making us happier. How did we screw up? (p.42)

He does not answer by highlighting human greed, vanity, penchant for gluttony or disregard for the welfare of others...instead he says, "we kept doing something past the point where it worked. Since happiness increased with income in the past, we assumed it would do so in the future."

Americans and Europeans at the time of Adam Smith had it pretty darned rough when procuring basic needs like food, shelter, clothing, literacy...the more of these the better was life; their absence equaled squalor, misery and poverty. McKibben says, "Is it any wonder, then, that we built a considerable velocity trying to escape the gravitational pull of that kind of poverty?"

In other words, our economic drive for more is so potent because it has worked so well...now, it is out of control, travelling along a trajectory that spells ecological disaster, social anome and personal despair.

It's like the person who rationalizes that if two prescribed pills will make him feel better, then four will make him feel great.

Mr. P, I heard a discussion about Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole on NPR yesterday morning. McKibben is not making an argument against markets, but he is challenging the dominant economic model that, as he says "worships markets as infallible". We need to "consciously limit their scope" and "downplay efficiency and pay attention to other goals." I am looking forward to his examination of regional, local economies that draw upon the farmer's market model. Still, I think the Consumed piece you mention could provide a strong support to the ways that McKibben describes our current drive for more as not increasing happiness.

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 4/10/07 12:58 pm

George Ricker · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

Chris: I suppose each participant gets to decide how they wish to participate. We have the chapter threads simply as a guideline, but it is completely acceptable to branch off and create side discussions about anything related to the book. Nobody should feel obligated to remain within the chapter thread structure.

I think one only has to look at last quarter's discussion of The God Delusion to see that these conversations can't be pigeonholed anyway.

I'm going to be ordering my book tomorrow so I'll probably be joining the discussion later, after I've received it and read it. I'm going to be away from my computer for a while, anyway. I'll have to catch up with this down the road.

George

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker

irishrosem · Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

In this chapter McKibbin writes: “the men and women at the center of our economic and political lives have not treated climate change as anything more than another problem to be dealt with as we’ve dealt with problems in the past; certainly they don’t perceive it as something that would call into question the doctrine of endless economic expansion” (24, emphasis mine). He cites liberals who “question not expansion but only the way that the new money is spread around,” and how “the Democratic party and the union movement typically demand even faster growth.” Essentially, wherever you stand along the economic divide, from CEO to labor, we’re all equally “intellectually invested in the current system” (14).

I wonder what kind of economic and political platform could emerge, within an industrialized, Western nation, which questions economic growth. Could a politician develop a successful campaign where she espouses decelerated economic growth? To me, it (a campaign based on decelerated economic growth, not necessarily the deceleration itself) sounds like a ludicrous idea. She wouldn’t get anywhere. Which illustrates McKibbin’s point that—assuming this is a necessary or attractive course—there would need to be a substantial reeducation/consciousness-raising effort to demonstrate that ever-expanding economic growth and development is not sustainable. And, according to McKibbin’s discussion in this chapter, this would need to include along with climate change, a discussion involving the social impact of unmitigated growth.

So my question is, who sees McKibbin’s premise as something that needs to be seriously considered and examined, and who thinks it’s crazy to question the virtues of economic expansion?

One other thought. McKibbin refers to an annual poll taken by the National Opinion Research Council which asks, “would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” (35). According to the poll, the U.S. for “very happy” peaked in the 1950s and steadily declined to today. But I wonder if there is more to consider than the issues McKibbin raises. Could the increased rate of reported dissatisfaction parallel individuals becoming more honest with their feelings? Can you picture a 1950s housewife admitting to her unhappiness? (I’m imagining the 1950s character from The Hours.) Compare an individual from 1950 to 2007, aren’t people, male and female, more explicit with their emotions? Part of the mass media effort (I’m not saying this was a concerted effort) mid-20th century demonstrated happiness, especially post-WWII. Americans were expected to play the part of the contented U.S. citizen. Trade June Cleaver for Roseanne Barr. Media at the end of the 20th century demonstrated that it was o.k. to be honest with your emotions—good or bad. Teen angst became a t.v. drama genre all its own. Hiding your emotional failings from you neighbors became less essential. And keeping up with the Joneses traded appearances of contentedness with actual material consumption. I don’t know whether or not we are less happy now—I just think there are more things to take into account than economic development.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

irishrose: I wonder what kind of economic and political platform could emerge, within an industrialized, Western nation, which questions economic growth.

If we were lucky, one that alligned its values and aspirations with the best of climate change science and the demands of ecological sustainability.

irishrose: who sees McKibbin’s premise as something that needs to be seriously considered and examined, and who thinks it’s crazy to question the virtues of economic expansion?

I think McKibben's thesis (more does not inevitably lead to better, and can actually lead to economic disparity, social anome, and ecological devastation) is certainly worthy of careful scrutiny and consideration. I think crazy involves the continued pursuit of a course of action, thinking that it will eventually produce different results. Encouraging the virtues of economic expansion (along US trajectories) in China and India is crazy. Actually, I think another title for Mckibben's book could have been (pace Dawkins) The Economic Expansion Delusion.

irishrose: I don’t know whether or not we are less happy now—I just think there are more things to take into account than economic development.

I think this is a very good point. How hedonics was approached in the early cold war era and how it is understood today would obviously impact any comparison between opinions provided then and now. I hope we can spend more time examining some of the many actual results that Mckibben refers to in his book. Still, the possibility that housewives were less than honest in the 50's regarding their state of happiness does not (I think) override the generally increasing dysphoria of the present. And no doubt there is more to this equation than economic development. What, do you think, is the proper place for economic development in the production of happiness or dysphoria?

RaulRamos · Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: More is not always Better

Quote:
He does not answer by highlighting human greed, vanity, penchant for gluttony or disregard for the welfare of others...instead he says, "we kept doing something past the point where it worked. Since happiness increased with income in the past, we assumed it would do so in the future."

I do believe greed, vanity, disregard for the welfare of others and so on are very much part of human nature (Dawkins would surely agree – I have only read The Selfish Gene, and that a long time ago – maybe he has evolved in a different direction). But I find that McKibben is right at tackling the problem from a different perspective: given that we, human beings, seem to be only capable of thinking in selfish (materialistic) terms, he tries to show by argument that the course we are taking puts us on the losing side: we are destroying our own shelter, we are depleting our food (and drink) sources and on top of that we are showing a sadder and sadder face. I think the difficult process of becoming conscious to which he makes reference goes necessarily through the realization that we, ourselves, are getting less and less. That has a potential to mobilize human beings as few sermons would have.

I love sometimes McKibbens humor. I find his ‘true, your heart is shot – but look at those six-pack abs’ brilliant as an example. ::01

JulianTheApostate

The first chapter of the book impressed me. I was afraid that this book would be a tiresome leftist diatribe (despite being a lefty myself). However, McKibben calmly makes a convincing case that the traditional economic goal of maximizing the GNP is flawed:

1) Most of the increased wealth of the last few decades as gone to the richest segment of society.
2) The environment has suffered enormous damage, largely as a response to the growing economy.
3) Getting richer doesn't make people happier.

I agree with 1) completely, and the "rich getting richer" aspect of the US economy has bothered me since I was a teenager.

Item 2) has become increasingly clear, especially in the context of global warming. At a visceral level, human needs such as people lacking medical care, concern me more than environmental issues, such as forests being chopped down. However, global environmental damage has a massive human impact that will get worse in the future.

Now, 3) is more discussion-worthy, because it's less known and intuitive. I've read about Kahnemen and Tversky's work elsewhere, and it's really cool stuff. Health, friendships, and relationships have exerted a much stronger impact on my quality of life than financial well-being.

However, I'm not totally convinced. Even though high-priced consumer goods don't generate happiness, high-quality medical care, though expensive, is really important. McKibben's $10,000 demarcation doesn't seem quite right.

Loricat

Mad: And incidentally, welcome to Raul. Based on his contributions to this thread, I'd say he's likely to make a welcome addition to BookTalk.

Ditto! ::80

Mad: "Growth" is to endemic a part of the structure of the system, and it's bound to arise as a logical conclusion or an impetus to political and social action.

So, if politically, we're 'stuck' with the concept of growth, perhaps the goal should be to change the definition of growth. I'm a little heartened by some of McKibben's discussion -- the Nordhaus quote on page 25 from as late as the 1990s compared to what someone would say today about the impact of climate change on the economy shows me that rather radical change in attitude is possible on society as a whole.

Perhaps what's needed to the idea of 'growth' is similar to the architectural/city planning concept of 'in-fill' -- increasing density and mulitiple uses of land & space. I think 'economic growth' needs some 'in-fill': define successful growth as something that increases the bottom line without damaging the socio-environmental foundation of one's company.

Just a thought.

Julian: Now, 3) is more discussion-worthy, because it's less known and intuitive. I've read about Kahnemen and Tversky's work elsewhere, and it's really cool stuff. Health, friendships, and relationships have exerted a much stronger impact on my quality of life than financial well-being.

Again, I'm going to mention Alain de Botton's Status Anxiety...which in many ways is a companion piece to this one (Here's a quote from buy.com):

Quote:
"Every adult life could be said to be defined by two great love stories. The first--the story of our quest for sexual love--is well known and well charted. . . . The second--the story of our quest for love from the world--is a more secret and shameful tale. And yet this second love story is no less intense than the first."
This is a book about an almost universal anxiety that rarely gets mentioned directly: an anxiety about what others think of us, about whether we're judged a success or a failure, a winner or a loser. This is a book about status anxiety.
Alain de Botton, best-selling author of "The Consolations of Philosophy and "The Art of Travel, asks--with lucidity and charm--where our worries about status come from and what, if anything, we can do to surmount them. With the help of philosophers, artists and writers, he examines the origins of status anxiety (ranging from the consequences of the French Revolution to our secret dismay at the success of our friends) before revealing ingenious ways in which people have been able to overcome their worries in the search for happiness. We learn about sandal-less philosophers and topless bohemians, about the benefits of putting skulls on our sideboards, and about looking at ancient ruins.
The result is a book that isn't just highly entertaining and thought-provoking, but that is genuinely wise and helpful, too.

Cheers,

Lori

"All beings are the owners of their deeds, the heirs to their deeds."

Loricat's Book Nook
Celebrating the Absurd

MadArchitect

Loricat: So, if politically, we're 'stuck' with the concept of growth, perhaps the goal should be to change the definition of growth.

That may be possible. Presumably, there is some flexibility to the way that we operate, although, I'd say that our mode of operation is less flexible than our conception of what is suitable material for those operations. That is to say, we're not likely to alter our consumption of some energy source, because the structure of our society is bound up with the activity of consuming, but it may be possible to change what energy source it is we consume. And you can see the attitudes of industrialized populations changing along those lines -- we aren't really rethinking energy consumption itself, but we are considering using, say, fusion or biodiesel rather than fossil fuels.

That sort of change seems to me like throwing in a step forward for every several steps back. By changing energy sources, we may stave off the collapse that a particular rate of consumption makes inevitable, but only for so much longer.

I think 'economic growth' needs some 'in-fill': define successful growth as something that increases the bottom line without damaging the socio-environmental foundation of one's company.

I'm not sure how you would popularize that idea. It seems to me that, structurally speaking, industrialized economy is heavily invested in the Cartesian ideology of controlling and transforming the natural world in order to serve human ends. So long as that remains the operable ideological assumption behind economic practice (as opposed to theory), there is probably a very limited range of alternative modes of production and exchange that society is willing to embrace.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT