Which of these two statements is more accurate?
The market system will automatically bring us the future we want.
We must decide for ourselves what future we want. Then we can use the market system, along with many other organizational devices, to achieve it.
We all know that the social, economic, political, and ecological systems of the world are creaking and groaning. Many proposals have been made to respond to the problems that ensue, and a lot of them probably will make a difference, in the short run. Increasing taxes on upper income brackets. Creating a single payer health care system.
The thing I wonder about, and highlighted in these quotes from the classic book, Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers, is whether many of these proposals miss their mark because:
1. They ignore the structure of the (unsustainable) economic system and instead try to address small aspects piecemeal.
2. They confuse means and ends.
One of the things that's often discussed at this site is economic justice. The gap between rich and poor in the United States has grown hugely over the past few decades. But the question remains, though, how it's possible for even middle-class Americans to consume 500% of the natural resources of the world's average. That is a fundamental material wealth imbalance (kept in place only because of our global economic and military dominance, a dominance that is slipping and will continue to slip), and imbalances eventually return to equilibrium in the long run.
A couple of more observations from Donella Meadows highlight this:
Not: Everyone should be brought up to the material level of the richest countries.
But: There is no possibility of raising material consumption levels for everyone to the levels now enjoyed by the rich. Everyone should have their fundamental material needs satisfied. Material needs beyond this level should be satisfied only if it is possible, for all, within a sustainable ecological footprint.
Not: Technology will solve all problems.
Nor: Technology does nothing but cause problems.
But: We need to encourage technologies that will reduce the ecological footprint, increase efficiency, enhance resources, improve signals, and end material deprivation.
And: We must approach our problems as human beings and bring more to bear on them than just technology.
Not: The environment is a luxury or a competing demand or a commodity that people will buy when they can afford it.
But: The environment is the source of all life and every economy.
Not: Industry is the cause of all problems.
Nor: Government is the cure of all problems.
Nor: Economists are the cause of all problems.
But: All people and institutions play their role within the large system structure. In a system that is structured for overshoot, all players deliberately or inadvertently contribute to that overshoot. In a system that is structured for sustainability, industries, governments, environmentalists, and economists will play essential roles in contributing to sustainability.
Second, in our attempts to resolve problems, we often confuse means and ends. That is, we should separate in our minds the difference between the tactics and methods we use to do something (means) and the actual final objectives (ends).
I've noticed this happening recently. The end goal of the occupy movement is not to occupy things---occupation is just a tactic to get a message out. When that tactic becomes the objective (as it seems to have at times in different cities), the message can get lost.
This distinction between means and ends is lost in almost all discussions about the economy, whether it's on the left or the right. Meadows again:
Not: All economic growth is good, without question, discrimination, or investigation.
Nor: All growth is bad.
But: What is needed is not growth, but development. Insofar as development requires physical expansion, it should be equitable, affordable, and sustainable, with all real costs counted.
We've forgotten that economic growth (whether it's in the form of trickle-down economics at one extreme or "smart growth" or "fair growth" at the other) is just a means to an end, as discussed by Herman Daly. We should be discussing not just the means, but the end goal: what is it that we want out of an economic system? It seems like sustainability (as defined by keeping within global ecological limits), human well-being (health, education, social justice, personal freedoms, etc.), and the like should be the ends of the economy. Growth is just one of the tactics that has been used to that end, and we need to recognize that since that growth isn't going to work as a tactic any more, we need to revisit our end goals, and pick a new tactic or set of tactics to achieve them.
Until next time...