Is NoGrowth-ism possible?

[icehorse]

It seems to me that we ought to be able to create a new economic system ("NoGrowth-ism"), with the following four basic characteristics:

1 - NoGrowth-ism can sustain a healthy economy without overall growth. *(And that includes ZPG.)
2 - NoGrowth-ism can provide some flavor of UBI (universal basic income), but recipients would have to "grab a shovel" to receive income. Something like the CCC in the depression.
3 - NoGrowth-ism can provide basic services for a healthy society: healthcare, education, infrastructure..
4 - NoGrowth-ism can allow inventors and innovators to be financially rewarded. Wealth is possible.

I've always heard that economic systems require constant growth, but I've never seen a good proof for that claim, and it has never seemed intuitively true.

*edited to include "no ZPG".

 

[Salvador]

It seems to me that we ought to be able to create a new economic system ("NoGrowth-ism"), with the following four basic characteristics:

1 - NoGrowth-ism can sustain a healthy economy without overall growth.
2 - NoGrowth-ism can provide some flavor of UBI (universal basic income), but recipients would have to "grab a shovel" to receive income. Something like the CCC in the depression.
3 - NoGrowth-ism can provide basic services for a healthy society: healthcare, education, infrastructure..
4 - NoGrowth-ism can allow inventors and innovators to be financially rewarded. Wealth is possible.

I've always heard that economic systems require constant growth, but I've never seen a good proof for that claim, and it has never seemed intuitively true.

No-growth-ism wouldn't maintain the overall standard of living if there were population growth. A steady supply of goods and services with an increased demand for the supply of these goods and services would result in inflation, less purchasing power, as well as a shortage of supplies, services and goods.

 

[icehorse]

No-growth-ism wouldn't maintain the overall standard of living if there were population growth. A steady supply of goods and services with an increased demand for the supply of these goods and services would result in inflation, less purchasing power, as well as a shortage of supplies, services and goods.

Ah, I should have mentioned that ZPG is implied in NoGrowth-ism. If we had ZPG, do you think NoGrowth-ism could work?

 

[Salvador]

Ah, I should have mentioned that ZPG is implied in NoGrowth-ism. If we had ZPG, do you think NoGrowth-ism could work?

Yes, but that'd be a big IF. ....

 

[Salvador]

Ah, I should have mentioned that ZPG is implied in NoGrowth-ism. If we had ZPG, do you think NoGrowth-ism could work?

I'd actually favor a universal basic monthly income of $400 adjusted for inflation thereafter that provide subsistence for all adult individual citizens in lieu of targeted specific federal government welfare spending on education, food stamps, housing, medicaid, unemployment compensation, and medicare benefits or social security disability income in the amount that'd be offset by universal basic monthly income. A universal basic income could replace food stamps, federal housing projects, medicaid, unemployment compensation, and medicare benefits or social security disability income in the amount that'd be offset by universal basic monthly income. A $400 universal basic monthly income for all adult individual American citizens would cost no more than what the U.S. federal government now spends on education, food stamps, housing, medicaid, unemployment compensation, and medicare benefits or social security disability income in the amount that'd be offset by universal basic monthly income.

Reference: US Welfare Spending for 2019 - Charts

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sooner or later there will be no other choice. And we do need to start changing strategy now. For example Social Security is a bit of a Ponzi scheme that relies upon an ever increasing population where the higher number of people coming up in the system supports the smaller number that has reached retirement. That cannot go on forever.

 

[Quintessence]

Constant growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell, and it has the same terminal outcome if applied to larger levels of organization like ecosystems (of which human economies are a byproduct of). The main problem with the philosophy, though, is that it fails think in cyclical terms. It fails to acknowledge that no growth (benefit) happens without shrinkage (cost), or that there must be counterbalancing of expansions and contractions within a system. It's not that you can't have constant growth - it's that you can't have unidirectional growth (which is what most economists mean when they say "growth" unfortunately). Effectively, cyclical growth would look like the non-growth system the OP proposes.

The long and the short of it is... if you've studied enough ecology and life science, it's not hard to recognize that constant, single-direction growth that only serves humans (and usually only a specific group of humans) as flawed and nonsensical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It seems to me that we ought to be able to create a new economic system ("NoGrowth-ism"), with the following four basic characteristics:

1 - NoGrowth-ism can sustain a healthy economy without overall growth. *(And that includes ZPG.)
2 - NoGrowth-ism can provide some flavor of UBI (universal basic income), but recipients would have to "grab a shovel" to receive income. Something like the CCC in the depression.
3 - NoGrowth-ism can provide basic services for a healthy society: healthcare, education, infrastructure..
4 - NoGrowth-ism can allow inventors and innovators to be financially rewarded. Wealth is possible.

I've always heard that economic systems require constant growth, but I've never seen a good proof for that claim, and it has never seemed intuitively true.

*edited to include "no ZPG".

You need to consider various ways of getting it done. Here is one possible plan:

First change the family unit back to an older model. Change ownership laws. Return to large family units instead of nuclear families for taxation purposes. Extended family are taxed as a group and own property as a group, and they produce group income. Individuals who wish to own land and be independent must leave their extended family unit to form a new one. Obviously there are a lot of legal details to work out. Families have a maximum size, measured every 2 years. Going over the size limit triggers a warning and fines then a division if the family doesn't take care of it.

Secondly require family units to work a minimum amount of land producing food or processing it. There are a lot of considerations, but the government should set a reasonable requirement for families based upon the type of land they own.

Third individuals may join units that are not family controlled, such as communes; but after a certain amount of time such communes become large family units. In effect they may transfer from one family to another.

Individuals without families may not own land. They must rent.

Problem solved. You now have the means to effect zero growth through non-combative policy making.

 

[Mister Emu]

No, no growth is impossible to sustain and the system will inevitably hit an irreversible failure cascade.

If your system isn't designed to grow, how does it recover from declines?

You're either growing or dying, and I don't want the economy or the population to be dieing. The answer isn't no growth, it is responsible growth.

 

[Shaul]

The only limit to growth is the limits of human creativity, which limitless.

 

[icehorse]

No, no growth is impossible to sustain and the system will inevitably hit an irreversible failure cascade.

If your system isn't designed to grow, how does it recover from declines?

You're either growing or dying, and I don't want the economy or the population to be dieing. The answer isn't no growth, it is responsible growth.

What I'm wondering about is a system in which some sectors will fade while others flourish, but that overall the system won't grow. So to answer your question, some sectors WILL decline.

But I'm really interested in your response. Do you have citations or more to say about why a no-growth system is unsustainable? This seems like a really crucial claim to examine in today's world of growing populations and diminishing resources.

 

[icehorse]

The only limit to growth is the limits of human creativity, which limitless.

Let's say that technology allows us to continue to grow our population. It seems to me that more humans living on the planet at the same time isn't really the key goal. Isn't a more important goal the quality of life for the humans and other creatures that live here?

 

[Quintessence]

No, no growth is impossible to sustain and the system will inevitably hit an irreversible failure cascade.

If your system isn't designed to grow, how does it recover from declines?

You're either growing or dying, and I don't want the economy or the population to be dieing. The answer isn't no growth, it is responsible growth.

It seems to me that "responsible growth" necessarily involves accepting that decline and death is part of the equation. As I said, in our realm, growth never, ever comes without cost. For something to grow, something else must decline. The exceptions to this are intangible assets, which are not what economists are talking about when they go on about growth. They are talking about more humans, more technology, more stuff, and all the while ignoring the costs of it. The human obsession with growth has thrown this planet into a sixth mass extinction event.

Let's think about that for a good, long time. Human growth is the direct cause of a mass extinction event.

Human Population Growth and Extinction
​

 

[Mister Emu]

What I'm wondering about is a system in which some sectors will fade while others flourish, but that overall the system won't grow. So to answer your question, some sectors WILL decline.

No, how does a system explicitly designed to not have overall growth recover from an overall decline? It doesn't.

Do you have citations or more to say about why a no-growth system is unsustainable? This seems like a really crucial claim to examine in today's world of growing populations and diminishing resources.

It's a matter of natural observation and simple logical thought applied to the concept. The law of entropy, nothing can stay in equilibrium indefinitely, that you don't have absolute control over every variable, there will be unforeseen calamities, human and natural, that will devastate your system.

Equilibrium is a perfect state, any minuscule amount less and it is decline and any minuscule amount more and it is growth. Human systems aren't perfect.

Do you have any "citations" that humanity would be able to produce a reliable economic or population equilibrium?

It seems to me that "responsible growth" necessarily involves accepting that decline and death is part of the equation. As I said, in our realm, growth never, ever comes without cost. For something to grow, something else must decline

The ultimate point is to make sure it isn't our decline and death in that equation. The responsible part is in ensuring that we do as little declining and death making among those things we utilize for our growth as possible.

The human obsession with growth has thrown this planet into a sixth mass extinction event.

Let's think about that for a good, long time. Human growth is the direct cause of a mass extinction event.

Nobody cares if you break a window getting out of a burning house.

I do have concerns with our damage not being directed towards getting off the planet.

 

[Shaul]

Let's say that technology allows us to continue to grow our population. It seems to me that more humans living on the planet at the same time isn't really the key goal. Isn't a more important goal the quality of life for the humans and other creatures that live here?

Population will not continue growing. The world has already achieved “peak child”. The population will continue to growth for the remainder of this century due to populating age groups, not because of the birth rate. The world will soon achieve a stable population based on surplus, not privation. See here,

 

[icehorse]

Population will not continue growing. The world has already achieved “peak child”. The population will continue to growth for the remainder of this century due to populating age groups, not because of the birth rate. The world will soon achieve a stable population based on surplus, not privation. See here,

Agreed. But it seems to me that 11 billion or so is too many. But back to the OP. Let's say we stabilize at 11 billion. The OP is asking what economic system can be sustained in a healthy fashion once the population has stabilized?

 

[icehorse]

No, how does a system explicitly designed to not have overall growth recover from an overall decline? It doesn't.

If the system allows for invention, then when one facet starts to decline, that will open up an opportunity for a different facet to expand. Why would the entire system decline? And even if it did, why couldn't it recover?

It's a matter of natural observation and simple logical thought applied to the concept. The law of entropy, nothing can stay in equilibrium indefinitely, that you don't have absolute control over every variable, there will be unforeseen calamities, human and natural, that will devastate your system.

I've not called for equilibrium. Within the limits of the size of the system, all manner of variations - good and bad - are allowed to occur.

 

[Mister Emu]

If the system allows for invention, then when one facet starts to decline, that will open up an opportunity for a different facet to expand.

And if the expansion of certain facets doesn't equal or surpass the decline in others, you have an overall decline.

Why would the entire system decline?

Are you unfamiliar with economic recession or depression? In 2008, the U.S. lost 4.3% of its GDP.

And even if it did, why couldn't it recover?

Recovery is growth. The founding principle of your imagined system is no growth, my question is how do you get get growth in a system designed not to grow?

I've not called for equilibrium.

Then you're calling for decline?

 

[Quintessence]

The ultimate point is to make sure it isn't our decline and death in that equation.

That sort of anthropocentric self-centeredness is precisely why we are in this mess to begin with. Needless to say, I do not agree. Especially since human decline and death is an inevitable part of that equation.

The responsible part is in ensuring that we do as little declining and death making among those things we utilize for our growth as possible.

Alternatively, humans decide to quit being so self-centered and realize that other persons have a right to flourish on this planet too. Gods forbid that we collectively go "gee, we've been growing a lot... how about we stop and let ourselves shrink to give back to someone else now? We can have our cycle of growth again later."

Nobody cares if you break a window getting out of a burning house.

I do have concerns with our damage not being directed towards getting off the planet.

[sarcasm]Yes, because it's totally ethically acceptable to commit planetary scale genocide and then leave your burning husk of a planet behind to go do the same thing to other planets.[/sarcasm]

May the gods never, ever permit humans - in their current state of abundant self-centered hubris - to leave this world. Disgusting perspectives like this are why I went from being in support of space travel to vehemently opposing it. If humans grow up, that'll change. So far, there are some signs humans are growing up. Who knows if it'll be enough.

 

[Mister Emu]

That sort of anthropocentric self-centeredness is precisely why we are in this mess to begin with.

I'd suggest rather we have a mess due to people of limited vision and little concern for the long term viability of the species. Sort of an opposite version of your stance, they would ruin us for short term gain, you would ruin us for the sake of a doomed planet.

Also, desire for your people to continue on isn't anthropcentrism, it is survival. That is life, that is nature. Living things fight to live on.

Especially since human decline and death is an inevitable part of that equation.

We don't know the limits of our reach, but what we do know is that that there is a near infinite set of resources to find those limits.

We might even be able to escape the death of the universe.

We can have our cycle of growth again later.

There is no guarantee of that, no guarantee that if we did the resources necessary for interplanetary colonization would still exist; your short sighted world view would potentially doom all life, ever.

Yes, because it's totally ethically acceptable to commit planetary scale genocide and then leave your burning husk of a planet behind to go do the same thing to other planets.

Ah yes, God forbid we go to Mars and turn it into a desolate, barren wasteland.

Do tell, what are the ethical concerns involved in gathering resources from lifeless rocks?

By the way, you do know that the earth is slated to become a burning husk even if humans all died out today, right?

Disgusting perspectives like this

Yep, how dare I fight to save any of the life on earth so that it can last beyond the death of the sun. Much less disgusting to argue we should give up our chance at that and let everything die out.