From: Conrad Hodson <conradh@efn.org>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: Re: The Economics of De-Population (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:55:44 -0800

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, The Childers wrote:

                  Sustainability does not suggest the termination of growth - it is merely sustainable existence instead of exploitation, growth at all costs, and enslavement.
Somehow, I doubt that. The use of the "growth = cancer" metaphor suggests that sustainability enthusiasts regard economic growth as an evil to be eliminated.

Speaking as a "sustainability enthusiast", that's not really the case.

First of all, I was around when that growth = cancer metaphor was coined. It was never meant as anything but counterpropaganda, a stop-and-think call to people who had been raised with the notion that growth was automatically good, for whom that idea was water to a fish. It was a play on words, because "growth" was a word for tumor from at least the mid 19th Century on. The point was merely "Hey, that word has some really nasty meanings too; let's use some judgement here."

Secondly, economic "growth" in the grossest sense, the way it is usually used, refers to such things as overall GNP, or the local aspects that go to make up such a figure. Bigger = better, even if it's a bigger cancer ward, a bigger prison, or a bigger traffic jam. As Al Capone put it to a reported who asked what life meant to him, "More, yeah, that's it, more."

Well, there are some very plausible situations where people can have better lives in the context of falling GNP. And I'm not talking about freezing in the dark, or grubbing roots and berries when I speak of better lives.

  1. Falling GNP in the context of falling population. Even if they fall in rough equilibrium, standard of living goes up (dramatically in the more marginal places) precisely because people abandon the most marginal land, the most marginal enterprises during such shrinkage. Productivity per man-hour goes up.

    Disasters lose much of their bite, when new waves of people don't keep getting crowded into harm's way, the way High Plains dryland farmers got wiped out every time there was a run of dry years, or the way Bangladeshi peasants get lured onto low islands by land hunger and then drowned a few years later when the next big typhoon hits. A smaller population can avoid those interruptions to its productivity, those losses of people and capital.

  2. Falling GNP in the context of greater efficiency. Waste pumps up the GNP, but by definition does no good to standard of living. Investing capital goods and labor in increasing efficiency may cut consumption of raw materials or energy, and reduce the GNP accordingly. But standard of living may actually rise, because people can spend money on other things, or take more leisure. Business profits can rise, because money can go to profits that was previously spent on fuel or metal or whatever.

  3. Falling GNP in the context of solved problems. Much of our GNP consists of the costs involved in various problems. Auto accidents, for instance. Body and fender repairs, replacement costs of parts or whole vehicles, tow truck fees, and medical treatment for the casualties all count toward the GNP total. Suppose we came up with a cheap and effective way to cut our accident rate in half. There might well be a net drop in GNP, but nothing but good news for the country as a whole. Cancer prevention, control of various natural disasters, or worldwide disarmament could all lead to major drops in GNP, but represent widespread improvement to people's real-world lives.

Conrad Hodson