James Greyson said:<\/p>\n
Phil, Do you think it helps to distinguish between modest returns (which could be part of a flow of money) and big accumulations of wealth (which seem to take money out of circulation and to often redirect flows of money destructively)? I wonder whether a slight tweaking of the language here and there could make the writing more engaging and less bleak.<\/p>\n
For example the harvesting of renewable resources such as solar is low only because we don\u2019t bother and it is maybe not limited to being steady if we expand nature? You must be thinking of ways forward, as well as how growth as usual is ending?<\/p>\n
Diminishing returns and complexity make an excellent introduction. Have you tried wiserearth as a community for posting and discussing ideas and solutions? I\u2019ve been surprised at how well it functions and the sense of being among supporters. See for example the comments on the Dubai talk (linked below). \u00a0Of course if you have criticisms please feel free to add those too!<\/p>\n
Hang in there Best wishes, James<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
James,<\/p>\n
The difference is that allowing \u201cmodest\u201d returns really needs to mean \u201cresponsive\u201d instead, since returns are measured in %\u2019s.<\/p>\n
Even a 1% return if reinvested for continual growth is still exponential and will exceed any limit and be \u201cimmodest\u201d.<\/h3>\n
It\u2019s not that 1% is \u201cbig\u201d, it\u2019s that the right thing to regulate is not growth rate but the response, to growth accumulation, at whatever rate. \u00a0\u00a0So, the real issue is \u201cwhen\u201d to say a relative change in scale has become an absolute change in kind.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n
Then investors needs to be responsive to the environment\u2019s need for adaptation. \u00a0 What that means in practice is that everyone needs to be able to trust that everyone else will be subject to fair limits on using their profits to multiply their profits.<\/p>\n
Sustainability demands that growth be responsive to approaching conflict, and not go over the line.<\/h3>\n
The solution I was thinking of recently was that everyone would have a \u00a0basic allowance for using money to accumulate money, say equal to their savings from earned income. Then you’d be allowed to accumulate more only for some voter approved or public purpose.<\/p>\n
Those societal purposes could be designed as shares of a total level of stimulus, regulated by scientific quality of life and environmental health measures.\u00a0 That\u2019s kind of “whacky” given our semi-religious culture around ever multiplying money…, but what do you think?<\/p>\n
an allowance for using money to accumulate money,
\nsay equal to your real savings from earned income<\/h3>\nI\u2019m not sure what you mean by saying our use of solar \u201cis low only because we don\u2019t bother\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 I think that\u2019s incorrect.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0We \u201cdon\u2019t bother\u201d mainly because solar is both inconvenient and has a lower physical and financial return on investment than cheaper energy sources.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t say that because I wasn\u2019t very motivated to become a solar systems designer and did years of research on it with my motivation to do so as its own reward. \u00a0I really say that because I noticed why it’s uneconomical.<\/p>\n
Solar energy still demands more time, material and attention and leaves many common needs unfulfilled.\u00a0\u00a0 All of that I was happy to suffer, or actually “enjoy” as I did my work on solar system, but almost none<\/strong><\/em> of my potential clients were willing to.<\/p>\n
Your\u00a0statement on WiserEarth<\/a> sounds good, up to your unexplained \u201cgrowth friendly\u201d comment.\u00a0\u00a0 Having been so explicit about the need for radical change, and then not explaining what \u201cgrowth friendly\u201d would mean seems to raise a red flag.<\/p>\n
There are such major misunderstandings about what growth is and how it works.\u00a0 If you agree that the natural purpose of growth is to create and complete the design of things within their limits, you could change the phrase to \u201cnatural growth friendly\u201d as opposed to \u201ccompulsive growth necessity\u201d as we presently have. \u00a0But you don’t seem to distinguish.<\/p>\n
The automatic reinvestment of ever multiplying investment earnings is the societal practice that really makes continual growth compulsory for economic stability. \u00a0People are only unaware that there is an available alternative, potentially providing a vitally healthy free market economy that doesn’t push it’s own environment toward collapse.<\/p>\n
The real problem is that almost everyone is confused entirely on the subject.\u00a0\u00a0 Take the odd contradiction in the design of sustainability plans, the intent to reduce our impacts by reducing our waste.<\/p>\n
The contradiction is that reducing waste does not usually reduce impacts over time. \u00a0You wouldn’t see something counter intuitive like that unless looking for it, of course. \u00a0 Generally speaking it makes more resources available for growing the whole economy’s impacts is the fact of the matter.<\/p>\n
I think most people have cause and effect completely turned around on that, and it\u2019s tragically THE central plank of the \u201ccommon plan\u201d for how sustainability needs to be achieved!\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0What do you think about that?<\/p>\n
I think it\u2019s one of the main reasons our solutions have been multiplying our problems, and why we don\u2019t see where our surprises keep coming from.\u00a0 We don\u2019t look at the\u00a0*impact of the waste being saved*<\/strong>, and don\u2019t notice it is a major source of growth feedbacks.<\/p>\n
Whether you call it \u201cusing less to do more\u201d or \u201cdoing more with less\u201d it\u2019s all still going to be just technology innovation to do more with more, as that’s what the usual rule for growing investments does.\u00a0\u00a0 Calling it \u2018green design\u2019 and attaching a lot of very high moral values to it, still just renames and provides an opening for the basic \u2018business as usual\u2019 model of endless development and multiplying impacts.<\/p>\n
We think if anything is \u201cgood\u201d then \u201cmore good\u201d is better, just never looking at the sharply diminishing returns of using things too much. With that confusion we keep wearing out our welcome on the planet.<\/p>\n
…growing competition within a heavily constrained system, throwing everyone into conflict. \u00a0Ouch!!<\/h3>\n
I agree entirely with your sense that the usual proposal to use heavy constraints to end growth would be a waste in itself, though. \u00a0My reason is different, as you\u2019d still have compulsively growing competition within a heavily constrained system, throwing everyone into conflict.\u00a0 That would not be fun!! \u00a0 ;-o<\/p>\n
What we actually need is a sufficiently effective means of relieving the compulsion from growth, now that nature is providing prohibitive constraints naturally. \u00a0Not respecting those constraints is making our lives complicated and threatening collapse for things we cherish.<\/p>\n
That growth compulsion comes most from the automatic feedback of investment earnings. \u00a0 Once you study it you find it’s that practice that fosters the social values of greed and authoritarian rule, and\u00a0would do so\u00a0*by itself*\u00a0even\u00a0against\u00a0everyone’s sincere wishes, as\u00a0the sole cause.<\/p>\n
Relieving the growth compulsion would mean finding and using investment returns for some better purpose, than pushing our economic ecology to collapse. \u00a0We’d need to divert them from their usual role in multiplying the stimulus of competition. \u00a0 If can’t find some better way to divest them, is the only time we’d be compelled to tax them.<\/p>\n
That would relieve the growth compulsion as those resources are redirected to better purpose, as well as save the waste of resources consumed for all the internal duplication and conflict. \u00a0That’s the main “product” that compulsively growing stimulus of competition as an economy hits natural limits otherwise.<\/p>\n
Then the kind of growth the system would still be friendly to
\nis natural growth, as the economy matures.<\/h3>\nWe’d naturally turn to building and completing systems to provide good service, responsive to the earth\u2019s means to provide resources.<\/p>\n
Does that fit your picture of what \u201cgrowth friendly\u201d should really mean?<\/p>\n
Best, Phil Henshaw\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00b8\u00b8\u00b8.\u00b7\u00b4 \u00af `\u00b7.\u00b8\u00b8\u00b8
\nNY NY\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 www.synapse9.com<\/p>\n<\/div>\ned 2\/13\/12<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
James Greyson said: Phil, Do you think it helps to distinguish between modest returns (which could be part of a flow of money) and big accumulations of wealth (which seem to take money out of circulation and to often redirect flows of money destructively)? I wonder whether a slight tweaking of the language here and … Continue reading Growth Friendly? – natural v. compulsive growth<\/span>