Are Growth And Consumption Our Enemies?

Our priority should be to stabilise and reduce the world's population. Stabilising Australia's population is easily done. Our birthrates have been below replacement levels for 36 years.

Reducing the world's population is a much bigger challenge. We could start by refusing to accept as migrants, people from large families. Countries that have reduced their reproduction to fewer than two children per woman, should not be accepting refugees from places in the world that haven't. Or if they do, it should be small families, with sterilisation the price of rescue.

Consumption is our enemy. Species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. And yet the people in fast breeding countries are still going to want a western lifestyle. The best we can do for them is to help them reduce their birth rates.

rparker,

Contradiction disappears if you read Garnaut's quote as

"...discourage resource-using capital intensification and [discourage resource-using] technological change."

rather than

"...discourage resource-using capital intensification and [discourage (all)] technological change."

I don't think so, as long as the government can provide work for the people I believe that everyone will survive. - Casa Sandoval

Thank you Warwick.

Yes, if we are growing it is "how" we grow that is important. Also, it is this same "how" which should allow us to be deeply propserous when we are in a steady state.

Damn the time and Adam Smith, as each has much to answer.

The time? Well in Smith's day resources were becoming more available and pollution was not even recognised, no cue forthcoming from the environment. Thus a system developed in which consumption was by and large to drive the economy. Sure the entrepreuner would find new ways technology would grow but the cue from the environment was slow in coming and even slower in acceptance. Just think, we could have been without the present warming,exuberant atmosphere and fires galore had we acted to reduce fossil fuel usage.

But no profit was all and the environment capital was not even acknowledged as existing.

Given the thoughts that might have revolved had Smith added environment to the accounting table, he might have made humans well being not profit as the end point. Just as another wanted to use energy as a measure, a money.

Hi Douglas - yes but on extension from what you say, the scariest and most dangerous aspect fo consumption-based economic health, is that it frames and conceptualises wellbeing in terms of money and consumable commodities.  This is dangerous because it completely ignores, as you say in mentioning accounting legers, other forms of wellbeing, wealth, capital, investment, assets etc, especially the non-material sorts...social, emotional, cultural, aesthetic, environmental...which threatens diversity.  Survival is all about diversity for through diverse traits organisms can adjust and respond to environmental, social change.  We live in an age of homogenising forces, dynamics, objects and relationships...for example the only "answer" for solutions is consumption and stimulus to consume/produce/innovate for more consumtion/production...economists of Smith's ilk have humanity by the short and curlies...til we begin new social movements that express and demand new values, practices, standards from our governments, leaders and market players...that life in the modern age needs to be about more than material objects

Mumma I thought you might have died and gone to heaven!

But no matter what the rationales here I loved the words "kick the economists out of the halls of power". they are always raving about what is best for the rich to get richer but can never predict a downturn. What gets me is how they can keep thinking that everyone can be rich when wealth is guaged by poverty and visa versa. Especially if the highs and lows are somewhat dependent on global investments. How can we be a rich country if most of us are not rich and nearly all of us are wage slaves with little prospect of change. My cat guages wealth by leisure, he's either catching mice or sleeping.

This is a good and rare article.

A first step would be to kick the economists out of the halls of power, writes economist Warwick Smith - See more at: http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/24/are-growth-and-consumption-our-enemies#comment-form

A first step would be to kick the economists out of the halls of power, writes economist Warwick Smith - See more at: http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/24/are-growth-and-consumption-our-enemies#comment-form

guywire - ah at least I went to heaven rather than the other place haha!! Nar, just exams so have to not distract myself with these sites!!  I constantly laugh at a 40-something year old having to remember things for exams and do things that need grading and assessing by others - it cracks me up whenever I think about it...didn't I do this once before about 20+ years ago!!???  And as to remembering quotes, statistics and years of author publications...ok I'll start rolling around on the floor laughing!!

GW I'd suggest that the reason these people don't pay much attention to cause/effects of downturns is because they don't fund the costs/risks of those, like the banks in USA, they use public money to save themselves...and place politicians in power with "austerity" policies that never affect their own selves...

And they can do anything with numbers, you can make entire populations look like they're ALL on a good wicket if you aggregate them just right...can completely erase unemployment for eg...how do we have such low unempl with almost no manufacturing industry??!!  Could it be because "employment" no longer means having a job where you work 9-5pm and take-home a livable wage?  Though the one hour of "employment" that now disqualifies one from being categorised as "unemployed" will do little for that person to afford...hmmm...rent, mortgage, electricity, petrol...or to actualise human dignity (nar that's too expensive isn't it...and besides...only those who aren't dole bludgers DESERVE dignity....right?!!  We'll treat you like scum of the earth for not working, but we'll not include you in relevant statistics cos you work 1 hour even if  this will do little for your "selfdetermination".) (I'm being sarcastic there in case someone doesn't pick it!!).

What's so ingenious about these ideas?  I'm struck by the thought that 60 years ago people didn't buy STUFF or throw it away like they do now...they darned socks, products had a respectable longevity and repairing things was cheaper than chucking them and buying new ones...no one's entire mortality and selfworth relied on little icons of technology with screens, pixels and apps and people survived just fine, you could eat fishnchips at the beach without feeling like an obesity criminal who would drop dead next week from shame or hypertension (I'm not sure which).

And on a related note - why is it that with all this "deisrable economic growth" that almost every service directed at the health and wellbeing of our society is under such duress at present that no departments can adequately do their jobs?  From the parole board to police investigations to prison populations to mental health to education to hospitals...there'ssupposed to be some trickledown effect but why exactly, if current economics practices are so great, why are all the institutions that uphold the health, wellbeing and social capital of our nation crumling?  Listen to the nurses, the ambos, the TAFE and Uni teachers, the social workers...???

OK enough of a rant for now!

Did you get the Military bit towards the end about how man had to sell their right to life to get a VOTE in America's great Democracy only to have the Constitution (the 6th Amendment) ignored by local courts to force workers, the working classes, into paying more Taxes, (when they should not be paying taxes), then the Corporations who are supposed to pay the Taxes and don't.

workers 860 billion????

Corporation 250 billion ????? So Democracy, Great Democracy or a Marilyn Monroe Democracy. So, do we follow the Yanks and that CRAP like Lemmings over the Cliff or ??????.

Jackal I think you would like the writings of George Ritzer, in books like The McDonaldization of Society, because it explains how society comes to be organised in such rigid, controlled ways, with rationalisation as the underpinning value...using the processes of the production line and efficiency to highlight how all through society now, people are controlled, caluculated, organised etc only along lines of efficiency.  It's an interesting perspective, I'm not sure how Ritzer includes power relations in his theories though or if he does what a lot of modernday sociologists do and completely ignores the question of class as an important socially structuring phenomenon that impacts life chances and quality of life...

Jackal, once people become "just numbers" (as in the case of the general tax payer) they lose any power.  People with wealth and power to influence, can be immune to the loss of their humanity (which a mere aggregation of demographical figures causes) and thus immune to the dissolving of their individual voices/interests into a writhing mass of Others...they can sustain an independent and noticable voice which will get listened to and obeyed.  Democracy in such a social process becomes irrelevant and impotent...only an external icon/ideal that we all believe in the same way we once believed in the Cross/priest/Cathedral of religion for the protection of our immortal souls...

It is a sad statement of the effectiveness of that system of dominance, that not only have problems of inequality/poverty etc not been resolved, but that the new System, has such power that it can reconceptualise the entire inequality problem into not existing at all (such as the impacts on our social structures of the loss of manufacturing industries, of "creative destruction, of fudged unemployment figures, of taxation/welfare policies)...quite remarkable ... but very scary!

Jackal, this whole internet thingy really intrigues and amuses me - it's as if once upon a time, if people had a view, cause etc they started/joined a religion or social movement, usually with some sort of values, purpose, logic (us-them, drama, interpersonal interactions, concrete social groups and activities etc) - now with the aid of the internet and technology, anyone can preach anything and anyone else can access it, believe, critique, interact with it etc - but all usually without anything tangible and profound actually happening as a consequence.  I love a good ol chin wag and could probably crap on just as loquaciously as this lady!!  But I'm just a bit too real-life, active and practical for blogs!  NM, Crikey and "places" like GetUp! or change.org are about as dedicated as I get to blogs!!  But rest assured - when I have something to say, it'll get noticed and the world will change!!  I've a few things in the works now - a bit of a david v goliath thing because I'm taking on The System...and I'd prefer to write a real book or a thesis to a blog...or a real-life program that contributes to social change/imrprovement.  But thanks for the suggestion!

"sterilse all those populations who are overrepresented in consumption...which would be all the people in western countries" 

Fightmumma!   Haven't you noticed! The western countries have already reduced their reproduction levels to fewer than two children per woman. Except the Catholic immigrants from south of the US border. So sterilisation of whites of European ethnicity is quite unnecessary. I know a lot of white males who have undergone sterilisation quite voluntarily, and if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for every other male in the world.

Here is a hypothetical for you:

Suppose that all the earth's wealth and resources were equally divided among all the people alive on planet at this moment. Then half of the earth's population paired up and had two children per woman, and the rest of the world produced four children per woman. How would the earth's resources be distributed then? Would it be fair for those families of six, to demand that the families of four, give up their share of the wealth, so that their extra children would have a larger share?

I don't think that it would be fair at all, but refugee advocates want those who have restrained their own reproduction, to provide for the children of the heavy breeders.

"The logical conclusion would be to eliminate those who consume to excess, rather than those who breed,"

Fightmumma: As I have already pointed out, those who consume to excess ARE ALREADY reducing their population. Refugees wanting asylum in western countries are seeking a western level of consumption. It is unreasonable for them to ask for entry unless they are willing to do what the western country has already done  - reduce their reproduction to fewer than two children per woman.

This is not forced sterilisation. The asylum seekers can stay out of the western countries.

"ruined other cultures that might hold the answers to overall survival and wellbing of people and the planet we rely on...such as our own indigenous people who knew how to live in harmony and respect to their tribal lands and families...surviving for 40,000 years."

Really Fightmumma! I suggest that you educate yourself on the realities of a hunting and gathering economy.

The aborigines' economy didn't allow for food to be stockpiled as an insurance against bad seasons in the future. Or move food from places where it was abundant to where it was scarce. Likewise with water. The people have to move to where the food was on foot.

What exactly do you imagine happened when a series of bad seasons followed a series of good ones? Was there a benign central government to enforce rationing until the weather got better?

Are we to suppose that, in times of food shortage, the aborigines of one group did not extend their foraging into country occupied by other groups? Are we to suppose that those groups did not defend their livelihood by the only means available: violence.

The Aborigines who were living in Australia when the Europeans arrived, inherited their country from the winners of centuries of battles against other indigenous Australians. They acquired their occupancy the same way the Europeans did: through violence against Aborigines.

"aborigines living in harmony"

Where did you get that from? Clearly you haven't read the memoirs of William Buckley, an escaped convict who lived with the aborigines in Victoria for thirty years before they had much contact with Europeans. According to his account, the aborigines were in a constant state of warfare. 

A hunting and gathering economy does not allow for population increase. Once the carrying capacity of the land is attained, the death rate has to match the birthrate, which was at its maximum. The aborigines had a high death rate before the Europeans arrived. They may even have been in greater danger of rape and murder than modern day asylum seekers. 

western countries have the highest rates of consumption even though they have smaller population growth.

Reading your post about Indigenous australians gives the impression you think no one can survive without western style governments - a fact made unreliable by virtue of multiple cultures existing with a diversity of social organisations for thousands of years...western style governing (particularly now with globalisation, mass consumption in wealthy nations, and a disconnect with natural production processes).  Also gives the impression that nobody even existed before money economies, which is just plain ridiculous.

Your comments about aboriginal culture only supports the assertion that you lack a comprehensive understanding of it.

"Reading your post about Indigenous australians gives the impression you think no one can survive without western style governments"

If you get that impression, your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking. 

As the so-called "leaders" of modernity, western nations have a social/environmental responsibility to lead the way when it comes to management and regulation of consumption and of consumption-based economic "growth".  Growth that culminates in destructiveness of the environment and of social/emotional/mental health is not really growth at all, growth that is at the expense of others' wellbeing/prosperity/rights is also not real "growth" - it is regression based on greed and self-centredness devoid of social responsibility/accoutnability.  If certain nations want to make claims of "civilised society" and justification of a particular economically-based organisation of the social world...they have an equal obligation to use their power and influence ethically.  History shows humanity of the western variety fails in this, justifies its failures and ignores its failures, that it produces gross social/cultural/national inequalities which it demonstrates no intention of acknowledging or addressing.  This needs to change regardless of people's opinions or beliefs about who "deserves" what family status/size/geographocal positioning or citizenship.

nar I don't think she craps on as in "has nothing worthwhile to say" I just meant to talk and talk!  I thought what she said was very interesting and pretty much sums up my own views on feminism.  But as I said, personally I feel I do more good by concentrating on one thing at a time and putting some action into my beliefs, I'm a single parent, I have a child with serious disabilities and I have other priorities.  It is my responsibility to address things that are within my sphere of control ie it is wise to know what one can do something about, rather than to only talk and cover multiple issues without ever contributing to any social change.  For me this starts with grassroots, self and those I can personally make contact with:

God (or whoever) grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Hating is too much negative energy for me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcGh1Dex4Yo