A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Unresolved questions

A couple of questions that I continue to turn over and which I’m not at all clear on the answers to:

Is it necessary to seriously restrain economic growth for the sake of the environment (and ultimately ourselves) or can growth continue pretty much at present rates but in “sustainable” ways (with the help of technological breakthroughs, e.g.)?

If present rates of growth do need to be curtailed, can this be done in a way that doesn’t drastically and disproportionately impact the very poorest people in the world, whose well-being would appear to be most directly tied to continued economic growth?

If it’s necessary to do so, is it possible to transition to a more sustainable model of development without dramatic net increases in state power and intrusiveness?

I think the semi-official answer to these questions would be that we must continue to grow economically and to expand trade globally, and that any environmental consequences will have to be dealt with by means of regulation, conservation and new technologies.

The dissenting view (or cluster of views) would be that industrial capitalism has to be re-thought at a fairly fundamental level, and that we should re-tool the economy primarily for local production and consumption (with protectionist measures if necessary). This would include poor people in the Third World who should be producing for local markets rather than commodity export.

These aren’t the only two possible views, but the first seems to represent, more or less, the elite consensus, while the second is more in line with the thinking of the anti-globalization movement. They also cut across the left/right division in that you have people on the “right” and “left” wings of both camps. There are liberal globalists and conservative anti-globalists, and vice versa.

Like I said, I don’t have firm answers on any of this stuff. For one thing, I don’t really feel well-informed enough to have an solid view. And, of course, the environmental dimension insn’t the only significant one. But it does seem to be particularly pressing in that everything else depends on the continued health and wholeness of the biosphere.

2 responses to “Unresolved questions”

  1. […] Toward a green manufacturing economy Posted on October 31, 2007 by Lee This is interesting and relevant to some of the stuff I was talking about here. […]

  2. A good starting place would be to remove the subsidies to resource consumption and waste, and remove existing protections that insulate firms from the full competitive effects of waste and inefficiency.

    This is totally counterfactual speculation. But if it weren’t for the state-sponsored national railroad system that first made possible a continent-sized market for national-scale firms, and the cartelizing effects of tariffs and patents, and the further cartelizing effects of the “Progressive” Era regulatory state–under those conditions, I’m guessing that America’s industrialization would have followed a pattern much closer to that described by Kropotkin and Mumford, rather than that described by Schumpeter and Chandler. In other words, the state (and the corporate interests that run it) is the bad guy.

Leave a comment