Sustainable Growth

It's a concept that a lovely woman named, Laura Strohm from the Sustainability Academy, asked me during lunch this past week. Is it possible to have "sustainable growth"? I am thinking about this and would love feed back from anyone who cares to comment. As for myself, I reacted with a strong, "No!", like it was a question in need of a venomous response... but as I think about indigenous cultures, I think they lived on this Earth without growth problems...(honestly, that's a presumption... I really don't know, but I think they lived and do live without this issue...) The difference between our industrial society and a society more intune with the natural world, is that they follow pricinples of the natural world and death is apart of the cycle. Can we have sustainalbe growth if we allow death to occur more naturally?

Any thoughts?
decal

SacredCowTipper's picture

no sustainable growth

We've overshot the planet's carrying capacity by 3x to 12x depending on which estimates you like. That means four billion dead before their time is through as a minimum and they aren't going to go quietly into the night, so those under stress likely get neighbors on the way down :-(

Growth is dead. We have a desperate need for focused optimization of what we have left, but no virtual person corporation makes $BUGBUCKS by that process ...

Andrew Womack's picture

Sustainable Growth

Post Carbon Authors have indicated that oil affluency has contributed to a mass population explosion--unsustainable without oil. Yet,these authors admit that human labor will be needed to replace cheap fossil labor. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. We don't have too many people, we have too many machines, doing too much of the work that people won't/arent doing for themselves. It is preposterous that in an era of gluttenous energy consumption and its subsequent convienience gadgetry, people dont see the absurdity of squandering vast financial resources to these convieiences only to resort to joinging health clubs to get the jogging and aerobics needed to burn unneeded calories. Its a world gone mad folks. One author has suggested that such leisure would require the services of 300 slaves in previous generations. History teaches that nature not only seeks balance, but demands it. Therein lies the warning for all of us. It would appear that this is the right and moral side of the issue. Unfortunately, history also teaches us that change is resisted until it is all but too late. This is one debate that can't move fast enough. Nature calls.
stevehinton's picture

Carrying capacity falls as fuel costs rise.

Well, Andrew. What is meant when we say that population is too large is that we have too many mouths to feed. That we are (not quite) managing to feed currently everyone is thanks to mechanised agricultural systems powered with cheap fuel. As fuel costs rise, food costs will skyrocket and the land we have will become less productive, no amount of human muscle power tilling it will help. Without transport and artificial fertilizer the food will not get on people's tables.
Linda Perrine's picture

Sustainable Growth is an Oxymoron

Sustainability implies reaching an equilibrium at some point within the carrying capacity of the Earth. If we were at maximum efficiency of recycling our used materials, choosing materials that actually do recycle, and living within the biological systems of the Earth, we could possibly measure growth by the productivity of our economy that included measurements of waste minimization, recylcing, reuse, etc. Until our definition of "Growth" includes all phases of a product/economy's lifecycle, then we are only measuring a small piece of what is required to be sustainable. We need a new language and new definitions within economics, religion, science, all human paradigms, that includes the Earth and all life in its values, measurements and decision making. Further, until we get a handle on human population, and a willingness to manage our own numbers, any form of growth will end in catastrophe for life on Earth. It is CHEAP ENERGY that has allowed our human population to skyrocket over the last 100 years and it will be the decline in oil & gas fuels that brings our population back in check, since we seem unable/unwilling to do it ourselves. So until we reach this new enlightenment about factoring the Earth into all ways of doing, thinking, being, we can forget about the oxymorons that people hide behind like "Sustainable Growth" and "Sustainable Development".
Decal's picture

And so, growth is ultimately unsustainable & decline inevitable

Our ecomony depends on 2 - 3% growth per anum... anything less will throw our industrialized society into financial ruin. A concern of mine is the collapse of the US dollar, which would bring on a depression more devastating then the The Great Depression of the 1920's - 30's. Ecomonic growth aside, the envirnoment is at a tipping point, our natural resources can not keep up with our growth... Decline in human population is hanging over our heads, I am afraid for my children, I'm afraid for myself.
Prepare's picture

Adapt

I have noticed recently that the trees have been adapting to their version of the "die-off". Some are sending out new branches very low to the ground, very full and quite healthy. Something really strange...but happening is that several pine trees in my neighborhood are growing branches of quite another unrelated species of tree. When the air is absolutely awful, birds huddle together in trees and don't make a sound. Yet on a healthy air day, they are out and as noisy and cheerful as usual. We also need to grow and sustain each other in new ways. Is our species really that whimpy that we can't handle some hard knocks? Our ancestors survived some really horrific changes in tech, climate, war and politics. We really need to quit being so fearful and start affecting our destiny before it affects us.
stevehinton's picture

In the context of carrying capacity or economics

We get into this debate every time. A population of people can grow in any given geographical area as long as the carrying capacity of that area (eg food producing) is not damaged. It is sustainable if this growth does not endanger carrying capacity for future generations. Then you have economic growth. This is often translated as Gross national product and the sum of all services bought. If a population is growing, GNP could be increasing whilst GNP per capita is falling. Then you could have a situation where a few rich are gettng richer and the rest are getting poorer and you still have high economic growth. If we could give each other services without involving the eco system we could probably have economic growth in a sustainable way. Like playing monopoly. the more we played, the more we would turn over in services (hotel charges, rent) the higher GNP per capita. Unfortunately that is not the case. For every kg of stuff you buy 30 kg of waste and effluent are produced. All that oil burnt up for ever! THAT is not sustainable.