Clinging Desperately to a Metaphor (2011)

Its hard to imagine a calm, reasonable, informed person with any degree of empathy reading this depressingly eloquent piece and not agreeing, at least with its broad outlines.<p>Yet we are ten years later and the interim period didn&#x27;t just see no alternative metaphor make any inroads, its been regressive in very visible terms. At some point there is a need to understand what is going on? There are several possible scenarios:<p>* psychopaths really do rule the roost. a tiny minority of well placed individuals hinder any chance of systemic change, essentially sacrificing the majority (and future generations) so that they maintain their current status quo for a few more decades<p>* there is positive change but its imperceptibly slow, dominated by &quot;noisy&quot; short term regression. the timescale of change is simply too slow to satisfy the impatient activist. the tumor is ultimately under control, too bad for the current generations, just keep persisting<p>* there is no change, because there can be no (controllable) change. the system is trapped in its own logic and sources of legitimization. Like a Jenga game we are at the point where removing any piece will bring down the whole. Like a runaway tumor, the faulty DNA will keep expanding until the organism is dead.<p>Maybe there are other narratives that better explain the situation or maybe its a combination of things. But we need to start understanding what is really our true condition.

The question I ask when I hear &quot;we shouldn&#x27;t grow past where we are now&quot; is - would this person make this claim just as well 20 years ago? 100? 1000?<p>What if we decided &quot;we have grown too much&quot; right before the invention of the internet? What if we did it right before the invention of household appliances that liberated women throughout the world to do something else with their time? What if we did it before urbanization? Before agriculture?<p>If we&#x27;re honest, we look back on all the progress that happened before us, with gratitude. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the fact that we have a warm place to sleep, reliable food sources, ability to connect with loved ones no matter where we are - these aren&#x27;t things we wish never existed (yes, I realize not everyone has these things but more people have them than ever before.)<p>So I look at it like that, and then I ask - if we keep growing, challenging ourselves, experimenting, etc - will the people living in 100 and 1000 years thank us for it? The pessimists say &quot;no&quot;, but history seems to show that &quot;yes&quot; - the trajectory of the world has been in the right direction for human safety, comfort and happiness.<p>By any measure - infant mortality, safety from war, education, access to culture, etc - we&#x27;re the luckiest generation yet and there&#x27;s no reason to stop working to give our children more of the same.<p>Of course we need to be smart about how we do it - look for sustainable and clever ways to grow that benefit more people - no question there. But to STOP growth is to betray our future.

I am more or less with her on this, and not just because I like her writing (and her audio book narration of her treatment of “Lao-Tzu: Tao Te Ching” is beyond wonderful).<p>Where I differ a bit is that zero growth is not the solution, but rather slow and sustainable growth. What we have now is awful. In the US, you have close to zero percent loans from the Fed to outfits like Blackwater who can buy residential property and rent it for a few percent pure profit. Young people I know who want to buy a home don’t get close to zero percent loans from the Fed.<p>With both political parties fully supporting the elites it seems like all is lost, but I don’t think this is so: massive peaceful demonstrations are the only way to make progress. When peaceful Occupie Wall Street protestors were brutalized at scale, I think the whole world noticed, and this kind of peaceful mass protest is probably what the world elites fear the most.<p>EDIT: I just noticed that she was not calling for zero growth, rather for equitable sharing.

&gt; From 2000 to 2007 (the last period of economic growth before the current recession) the richest 10% of Americans received 100% (one hundred percent—all) the average growth of income. The other 90% received none.<p>The economy has turned into this &quot;heads I win, tails you lose&quot; tool for the rich. 1. When The Economy™ is going up, already rich people (read, people with significant investments) get richer, but the average person doesn&#x27;t really benefit, and the bottom ~50% get no benefit at all[1]. It&#x27;s like reading that company-wide email celebrating your boss&#x27;s boss&#x27;s boss&#x27;s promotion. Congratulations, but who cares? 2. When The Economy™ is going down, already rich people aren&#x27;t really affected that much (maybe their vast portfolios go down some double-digit percentage, Boo-hoo), but the average person and the bottom 50% lose their jobs and experience misery. It&#x27;s a gigantic casino, where jackpots only go to a few already at the top, and all the costs and losses are borne by the rest of the public.<p>1: Almost half of all Americans do not own any stock at all, including in mutual fund or retirement savings accounts. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.gallup.com&#x2F;poll&#x2F;266807&#x2F;percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.gallup.com&#x2F;poll&#x2F;266807&#x2F;percentage-americans-own...</a>

Growth can manifest itself as a rising standard of living for everyone (albeit unequal). I’m pro-growth, but I do agree with the notion that if we want humans to survive for multiple millennia, we need to foster a much more holistic idea of growth (which includes waste, resource consumption, environmental damage, human well-being, etc).

The big concern that I have for an economy without growth is that it becomes a zero sum game. Collaboration is a strong method of keeping the peace, without growth there seems a reduced incentive for collaboration.

Economic growth can be equitably distributed, as it was in the western world up.to the 70&#x27;s, and has been in China. Of course GDP says nothing about the way wealth is distributed that&#x27;s why you have to look at where the growth goes.<p>There&#x27;s no iron law which says that growth &#x27;has&#x27; to go to the top 10%

Not that there&#x27;s no valid discussion to have about growth as an objective per se, but this is a particularly weak rebuttal that hinges on a narrow definition of (material) growth. Economic growth is first and foremost about the <i>value</i> of economic exchanges. Not about the amount of stuff we make.

US economic growth is much much lower than it was 50 or 70 years ago. Population growth is also lower. If we&#x27;re pointing out modern issues like the rich getting richer then I feel the correlation is with LOWER economic growth causing it rather than HIGHER economic growth. Once it becomes closer to a zero-sum game the rich have an advantage. Ecological damage goes the other way since it&#x27;s harder to grow quickly with environmental restrictions.

&gt; As a result of uncontrolled economic (and population) growth, our ecology is sick, and getting sicker every day.<p>I can get halfway to agreement here, but UKL&#x27;s assertion invites the question of who is in control?<p>More pointedly, how do we agree upon the operating point and stabilization mechanisms?<p>THAT is the sticky wicket.

In medicine, you&#x27;d call unbounded growth a tumor. I&#x27;d say our desire for ever growing economies acts as a tumors towards the environment...

I love UKL&#x27;s prose, but her clinging to a metaphor between biological and economic growth seems to me too desperate. Those two things aren&#x27;t the same, even if they accidentally use the same word. (And I think that is the root of the inaccuracy: writers love words and are enthralled to them.)<p>Biological growth is always physical. Economic is not, there is a large virtual component (maybe too large!). It is possible to generate a lot more economic growth through clever ideas such as invention of e-mail than through deforesting the entire Amazon. A lot of inventions that generate economic growth actually <i>save</i> the environment. For example, modern production of electricity is probably less destructive than the traditional logging of forests for wood to burn, which was the preferred way from minus infinity to 1800.

I’m not a proponent for endless growth, but the metaphor is fraught. An economy is not a single animal, it is a collective…. And collectives&#x2F;herds&#x2F;packs in nature grow to the limits of their resources (or create more collectives), just like human economies do. Often to the point of resource exhaustion and colony collapse.<p>I hope there is a better way to maintain an economy, but nature isn’t a great inspiration.

As far as I&#x27;m concerned, the optimal size of the economy is when everyone can have everything they want.<p>Until then, there&#x27;s work to do.

Reminds me a little of Goldsmith’s “what is the purpose of an economy?”. First few minutes set out the argument. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;RowLyW5X52A" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;RowLyW5X52A</a>

May the solution be to live like the people on Anarris, then.

In reply, one question: &quot;Is your population growing?&quot;<p>If your population is growing and your economy isn&#x27;t, somebody is having problems.

I consider it another mistake to expect any alternatives to be fully formed (or well described) and complete in any sense.<p>The current capitalist-market does some things pretty well, but it was not ever described as a system until after it was already working in practice.<p>(I&#x27;d go as far as saying that there&#x27;s no great accepted explanation of what it does well and how it does it so well).

&gt;<i>&quot;It’s as silly for me to write about economics as it would be for most economists to write about the use of enjambment in iambic pentameter. But they don’t live in a library, and I do live in an economy.&quot;</i><p>Also reminded me of Einstein in his essay &#x27;Why Socialism?&#x27;[1]<p><i>&quot;Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.<p>For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.&quot;</i><p>Unlike a lot of technologists or experts today Einstein was very aware of the difference between what is and what ought to be and the limits of trying to manage human affairs with expertise, which shows a remarkable level of humility given his achievements in science. The narrative of never-ending growth, or inevitable &#x27;technological progress&#x27; or expert management all strengthen the same premise, that people cannot take control of their own environment or aim to develop economic or technological domains towards social and ethical ends.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;monthlyreview.org&#x2F;2009&#x2F;05&#x2F;01&#x2F;why-socialism&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;monthlyreview.org&#x2F;2009&#x2F;05&#x2F;01&#x2F;why-socialism&#x2F;</a>

Yet again another person with no background in economics that argues against growth.<p>Deploying the latest build to prod in 5 minutes, while I write a comment here, instead of spending 8 hours typing commands and hoping the DB doesn’t explode, is economic growth. Sending a text to my mother for free, instead of spending a trillion for an intercontinental phone call is growth.<p>As per the “system” or “capitalism”, I am not sure I understand what it is supposed to be. If I really had to give a definition, I’d say capitalism is the result of some Italians inventing the anonymous&#x2F;limited company and double entry bookkeeping between year 1000 and 1500. I don’t understand what we are supposed to do about that, and this opinion piece doesn’t really add anything to the conversation. There’s a discussion to be had on income and wealth inequality, but a discussion is not noise, such as this piece.<p>As per “socialism”, it brought chaos, death and destruction wherever people tried to implement it. Unless we call “socialism” what’s going on in continental Europe, which is workers rights, unemployment benefits and personal hygiene. And that we call capitalism.

I think one difference between liberal minded and conservative-minded people is their version of the future.<p>Liberals idealistically look to the future and say what if!<p>Whereas, conservatives pessimistically look to the future and say what if!<p>Human nature seems to corrupt any system that exists so I don&#x27;t know if a system exists that can both accommodate human nature and also spread equality better than capitalism.<p>I think the key may be to control it somehow.

We already have enough poems, more poems than any person can read in a single lifetime. And they already cover every possible subject, life, death, love, war, poverty, whatever subject you prefer.<p>When will the poets stop ceaselessly creating new works? We&#x27;ve reached and surpassed the optimal size for the body of poetry.<p>What a nonsense argument.