Ecological Overshoot and motivation science: Must healthy economies grow?

[icehorse]

Ecological Overshoot is the idea that as a species, humans are consuming the finite resources of the planet in ways that are not sustainable long term. From this perspective, climate change is just a symptom of the larger problem of overshoot.

==

I took a couple of semesters of economics in college. I've read a few books, heard countless news stories, read many articles concerning economics. I'm not an expert by any means, but like most of us, I've been - in a way - immersed in economics for decades. One idea that seems to be an unquestioned claim is that economies must constantly grow to be healthy. I'd say this this claim is an article of faith.

But why? It certainly benefits the rich when economies grow. But we've seen that "trickle down" economics are largely a lie. So I did an internet search:

"can shrinking economies succeed" - and got a lot of hits. I ordered this book (below) as a place to start.

So the question of the necessity of economic growth seems important.

== motivation science

It seems to me that we must accept that we're human, biological animals. We're not somehow "outside of nature", we are a part of nature. One key aspect of being human is the idea that many things motivate us. When it comes to economics, human motivation is a key component. There are many forms of motivation, the weakest being the "carrot and stick" type and the strongest being "intrinsic". Among other things, scientist Jaak Panksepp posits that ALL mammals (and some birds), of ALL ages, like to play. Play is an example of an activity that is intrinsically motivating. It does not seem evolutionary advantagous, at least not in mature individuals. Yet most of us do it, a lot. So it seems to me that any economic system that's going to succeed cannot operate in opposition to our strongest type of motivation, intrinsic motivation. All this to say that - IMO - any successful economic system must reward invention and innovation.

So my summary is this:

If we're to survive, we must create economic systems that thrive when shrinking and that reward invention and innovation.

https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-w...1696264116&sprefix=prosperity,aps,1131&sr=8-1

 

[Heyo]

One idea that seems to be an unquestioned claim is that economies must constantly grow to be healthy.

It's necessarily true for capitalism. The capitalist expects a "return of investment" that is greater than the investment, iow, he wants to have more next year than today. If that isn't guaranteed by the system, it collapses.

 

[Yerda]

You might find the work of Kate Raworth interesting

 

[Revoltingest]

Economies needn't grow to be healthy.

 

[icehorse]

It's necessarily true for capitalism. The capitalist expects a "return of investment" that is greater than the investment, iow, he wants to have more next year than today. If that isn't guaranteed by the system, it collapses.

For the sake of discussion, we can assume that's true. How about other systems, e.g., "free market" that reward invention, do they ALL require endless growth?

I guess another "assumption" we're all meant to accept is that we have to accept either capitalism or some socialist / communist system. That's probably a false dilemma, correct? E.g., how about "free market" approaches that don't require "capitalists"?

 

[Alien826]

It seems to me to be obvious that a society that didn't grow, in the sense that its inputs and outputs remained constant, could survive. It probably wouldn't change much, but it would survive. However, I constantly hear that growth is essential. I've tried to research it, without much success, apart from the idea that an increasing population needs a growing economy to support it.

I'll follow this thread with interest.

 

[Alien826]

For the sake of discussion, we can assume that's true. How about other systems, e.g., "free market" that reward invention, do they ALL require endless growth?

I guess another "assumption" we're all meant to accept is that we have to accept either capitalism or some socialist / communist system. That's probably a false dilemma, correct? E.g., how about "free market" approaches that don't require "capitalists"?

I don't think we can find any country in the world that has either pure capitalism, pure communism or pure socialism. The most successful seem to use some kind of mixture. My observation is that if you want a lot of "stuff", some good some bad, go with capitalism, but you'll probably get a huge disparity in individual wealth, with predictable problems. Socialism will share the wealth pretty well, but there may not be so much of it. I'm not sure if pure communism has ever been successfully tried, but where it has been attempted it seems to turn into some form of authoritarian rule pretty soon.

All systems are subject to corruption by the worse aspects of human nature.

 

[The Hammer]

We call it the "myth of progress" in my anthro circles. The idea that as a species and as a society (economically, scientifically, lifestyle), we must always be improving, doing more, getting better, and unhappy with the status quo.

But this isn't sustainable as you pointed out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Economies needn't grow to be healthy.

Mmm .. only older people realise that, by experience.

It's a case of maintaining the growth that you have already had.
If we are too greedy, it backfires! [ recession ]

 

[Revoltingest]

Mmm .. only older people realise that, by experience.

It's a case of maintaining the growth that you have already had.
If we are too greedy, it backfires! [ recession ]

In this case, it's the recognition that ever
expanding economies aren't sustainable
when we live on a single planet of fixed size.

 

[Augustus]

If we're to survive, we must create economic systems that thrive when shrinking and that reward invention and innovation... So it seems to me that any economic system that's going to succeed cannot operate in opposition to our strongest type of motivation, intrinsic motivation. All this to say that - IMO - any successful economic system must reward invention and innovation.

It's not just about the economic system, but the social system. If the social system affords status to wealth, power and consumption then that will motivate how people use their wealth.

For example, many successful 19th C Quakers became industrialists who built model communities, encouraged moral living, temperance, charity, etc.

Aspects of this religious moralism may grate modern sensibilities but it was a social impulse that existed along side capitalistic venture. It requires a commitment to something bigger than the self.

The modern globalised economy with high levels of national and international population mobility, large scale governance, much wider access to information, increasing diversity of belief, modern mass media, etc. is basically antithetical to creating a widely shared commitment to a common goal (religious, ideological, patriotic, civic, etc.)

Humans are always searching for meaning in what they do, I'm not very confident this can be redirected into a more positive form, especially if we keep focusing on the largest, most diverse scale - global solutions.

 

[Stevicus]

Ecological Overshoot is the idea that as a species, humans are consuming the finite resources of the planet in ways that are not sustainable long term. From this perspective, climate change is just a symptom of the larger problem of overshoot.

==

I took a couple of semesters of economics in college. I've read a few books, heard countless news stories, read many articles concerning economics. I'm not an expert by any means, but like most of us, I've been - in a way - immersed in economics for decades. One idea that seems to be an unquestioned claim is that economies must constantly grow to be healthy. I'd say this this claim is an article of faith.

But why? It certainly benefits the rich when economies grow. But we've seen that "trickle down" economics are largely a lie. So I did an internet search:

"can shrinking economies succeed" - and got a lot of hits. I ordered this book (below) as a place to start.

So the question of the necessity of economic growth seems important.

== motivation science

It seems to me that we must accept that we're human, biological animals. We're not somehow "outside of nature", we are a part of nature. One key aspect of being human is the idea that many things motivate us. When it comes to economics, human motivation is a key component. There are many forms of motivation, the weakest being the "carrot and stick" type and the strongest being "intrinsic". Among other things, scientist Jaak Panksepp posits that ALL mammals (and some birds), of ALL ages, like to play. Play is an example of an activity that is intrinsically motivating. It does not seem evolutionary advantagous, at least not in mature individuals. Yet most of us do it, a lot. So it seems to me that any economic system that's going to succeed cannot operate in opposition to our strongest type of motivation, intrinsic motivation. All this to say that - IMO - any successful economic system must reward invention and innovation.

So my summary is this:

If we're to survive, we must create economic systems that thrive when shrinking and that reward invention and innovation.

https://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-without-Growth-Foundations-Tomorrow/dp/1138935417/ref=sr_1_1?crid=4B3KQW373ZA0&keywords=prosperity+without+growth&qid=1696264116&sprefix=prosperity,aps,1131&sr=8-1

One thing that has to be considered is that much of what we're facing now is unprecedented in terms of known human history. We've never had this many people on the earth before. Most of the technology we use would have been unheard of centuries ago, which is when many of the political and social ideals we live by were formulated.

Back in the days when populations were small, mostly agrarian and much of the planet was unexplored and unknown, it probably would have seemed "unlimited." So, even though we know better now, our political system and social values haven't really advanced with that knowledge, except mainly on a superficial level.

I honestly don't know what the future holds or whether humans will survive. I think we might consider the possibility that harder times are coming, at least in terms of a desire for economic growth, economic advancement, the apparent resurgence of nationalism, along with climate change and the finiteness of resources (to include the most valuable resource of fresh water).

It seems that, when looking at the entire picture, it's almost as if we've reached a plateau, which is also kind of a dead end. Even Hollywood can't think of anything new, so they keep regurgitating remakes and reboots. Governments and politicians aren't much better. Nobody has any real vision or any ideas as to what to do, other than to keep on doing what we have been doing all along - which is what led us to a dead end in the first place.

The sad thing about it is that none of this should really be any great surprise. We've known (or should have known) that we'd eventually reach this point, but over the past several decades, I've seen a lot of carefree, all-is-right-with-the-world attitudes being displayed, as if there was never anything to worry about. "Don't Worry, Be Happy" has been the prevailing attitude amongst US politicians and leaders for quite some time. It was the GOP's theme song back in '88, but the Democrats chose to jump on that bandwagon in '92.

It's like some drunk guy, waking up in an alley and wondering how he got there. That seems to sum up the political culture at present. Nobody knows what happened or how it happened, and nobody knows what to do about it now. And even if they did know what to do, it's unlikely that very many would agree to do it, particularly those at the upper echelons of political and economic power.

And all anyone really seems to want to do is fight. As a wise Klingon once said "Only a fool fights in a burning house."

 

[Heyo]

apart from the idea that an increasing population needs a growing economy to support it.

In Japan and most of western Europe the population isn't growing - but consume and overproduction still is.

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems to me that we must accept that we're human, biological animals. We're not somehow "outside of nature", we are a part of nature.

I am not.
I have evolved from the animal stage.
I know some haven't yet...that's why they still rely on the jungle law, aka law of the fittest.
Driven by infinite greed. As the lion in the savanna.
We live in a overpopulated world, with finite resources and we must choose the way of cooperation to preserve Earth, and to think of how to preserve nature.
Since we are superior to animals, for we are divine beings, we must protect them.
We are outside of nature.

 

[Estro Felino]

Economies needn't grow to be healthy.

All that matters is profit.

Because if some bankers don't gain their daily million of dollars (give us today our daily, million, Our Father, Amen), they will start to have a seizure, convulsions, and asphyxia.

 

[Heyo]

For the sake of discussion, we can assume that's true. How about other systems, e.g., "free market" that reward invention, do they ALL require endless growth?

I guess another "assumption" we're all meant to accept is that we have to accept either capitalism or some socialist / communist system. That's probably a false dilemma, correct? E.g., how about "free market" approaches that don't require "capitalists"?

There have been traditional systems that were sustainable - but they were also not very inventive. Capitalism is just so damn successful economically that it beat systems that didn't ignore the exploitive and depletive nature of the system. When we can find a way to get the capitalist industries pay the real price for what they have taken for free or for cheap in the past, we might incentivise development of processes that produces the same with less resources. If we can find a way to honour long living products, we may reduce waste by built-in obsolescence. If we can change the societal value of non material assets, people might not long for material wealth.
And finally, if we can restrict the accumulation of wealth, we can end the "need" for capitalism.

 

[sayak83]

It's necessarily true for capitalism. The capitalist expects a "return of investment" that is greater than the investment, iow, he wants to have more next year than today. If that isn't guaranteed by the system, it collapses.

A shrinking economy can still grow if the population is shrinking faster.
Another possibility in expanding our understanding of the "product" in a GDP calculation. If a company invests in making air cleaner and a part of the savings obtained from health care savings goes to them as a "credit" then cleanness index becomes a valuable product that can be taken into the calculation.

 

[Augustus]

A shrinking economy can still grow if the population is shrinking faster.
Another possibility in expanding our understanding of the "product" in a GDP calculation. If a company invests in making air cleaner and a part of the savings obtained from health care savings goes to them as a "credit" then cleanness index becomes a valuable product that can be taken into the calculation.

A shrinking economy can also "grow" if the average person sees themselves as doing better.

For example, in places like Ireland that function as tax havens, much of GDP is little more than an accounting trick and has minimal connection to the 'normal' economy. Ireland could, in theory, have a double digit % GDP drop while the average person is better off.

 

[Revoltingest]

All that matters is profit.

You don't run a business, do you.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't run a business, do you.

The Constitution of my country says that free economic enterprise cannot and shall not be carried out against the Common Good, aka Common welfare of the citizens. Which includes the right to a healthy environment and to people's health.
So...it is not true that economies don't have to be healthy.