(This is Part 5 of a series. Go back to Part 4.)
1c. The growth imperative
The growth imperative is Thomas Homer-Dixon's felicitous term for the constant push by people at all levels—politicians, economists, business leaders and consumers—to "grow" the economy. For many, "growth" is a belief so sacred that it has become almost a religious dogma.
Free-market capitalism is the best system yet discovered for creating wealth in a society, but it also has severe drawbacks if left unchecked. For one thing, as we've seen, the gap between rich and poor slowly grows ever wider as more and more land, wealth and resources are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
In 1870, for instance, the ratio between the average income in the richest country and the poorest country was 9 to 1. By 1990 that ratio had grown to 45 to 1. And even in the richest countries, enjoying a level of wealth undreamed of through most of human history, the growth imperative—to become richer yet—remains undiminished.
Since consumer spending makes up 70% of the economy in developed countries, the growth imperative falls most heavily on the consumer. Everywhere we're bombarded with advertisements and commercials to "consume" for an increased well-being. If we buy this toothpaste it will whiten our teeth and increase our sex appeal. If we buy this SUV it will give us seating for seven so we can easily take the whole family to the beach. On and on it goes, like a hamster wheel.
Not only that, but larger is better. We grow up with the notion that if
this much is good then this much more is even better. So in the last 30 years the average weight of our cheeseburgers has grown by 25%, we drive twice as many miles per capita, the floor area of our houses has grown by 45% and the volume of our sodas has grown by 50%. So of course we're much happier.
Research has shown that increasing material wealth is subject to the law of diminishing returns. It turns out that it does make one happier to rise out of abject poverty in supplying the basic conditions of life—food, shelter, clean water, etc. Studies have found that as a country's average annual income per capita climbs to about $13,000 people do appear to be happier. But beyond that, increasing income seems to have little correlation with happiness.
Moreover, the concept of economic growth at all costs is on a collision course with the resources of the planet. The day will come when having a sustainable—and therefore viable—planet will be considered far more important than maintaining economic growth. Indeed, one of the most basic challenges facing humanity is how to come to terms with the idea of an economy that does not grow, but merely sustains itself.
This does not apply to the poor of course. For those living on $2 a day or less, per capita economic growth is essential if poverty is to be lifted into well-being. But even here, how this is accomplished will be key.
If there are actually half a billion cars on the road in both China and India by 2050, for instance, those cars will have to be of a type almost undreamed of now—much smaller, much more lightweight and weaned off the tit of polluting fossil fuels. Economic growth in the developing countries will have to be coupled with extreme energy efficiency if we are not to bring about an ecologically devastated planet.
But rich countries, because of expanding economic growth from an already-high base, contribute to global ecological problems out of all proportion to their population. Though the developed countries have reduced local air and water pollution over the last 25 years they are still adding hugely to global ecological challenges.
Consider: Since 1980, because of increasing wealth and a resulting 27% increase in energy use, the U.S.—despite increasing energy effficiency by 20%—still increased its total output of carbon dioxide during the period by almost one-quarter.
Sooner or later the entire planet, beginning with the developed countries but eventually including all of humanity, will need to focus intently on the concept and practice of living in a sustainable way, that is, where population, economic activity, resource use and so on remain in a more or less steady-state condition.
To do this successfully will require the utmost in innovative thinking and adaptation in all spheres of life—economic, educational, social, political, scientific. It may be the greatest adjustment that humanity will ever have to make, but failure to do so will mean living on a roasted planet with dire prospects for food production, economic activity and general quality of life.
(This is the end of Part 5. Go to Part 6.)
—jim sloman, for 12.8.06
|
