A transition is needed.
A mantra of Americal economics has, since inception, been growth- growth at all times and at all costs. Times of recession are to be feared and gotten through as quickly as possible. Growth has made us a superpower in all our technological, political, and economic glory. But times are changing, as we widen our horizons to be planetary stewards and look increasingly to a future that extends out centuries and millennia, and whose foundation requires, therefore, sustainability. It is clear that we have to look at growth differently.
Economic growth comes from both population growth and growth in productivity / technology / efficiency. How do these relate and are both necessary? Aside from specific contractual problems such as those of Medicare and Social Security in a stable or declining population world, is economic vitality dependent on population growth? I think only slightly. We continue to need economic growth that comes from technological advancement and operational efficiency. The former is highly dependent on research institutions largely staffed by apprentice researchers, and generally on a supply of well-educated young people at their creative and energetic peak. Employers also value the malleable and cheap labor of the young over the grumpy labor of the old. But efficiency gains come from experienced older people as well, with accumulated technological and organizational knowledge, and better people skills.
The US has been used to population growth, and many think that a lack of population growth would represent demographic, even economic, catastrophe. The Social Security system is one example of a generational transfer system which at inception relied on short life-spans to control expenses, but now relies on an ever-growing population of workers to fund the ever-lengthening retirements of our now much-healthier population. Likewise, low wage sectors such as agriculture rely on a mostly illegal population of mostly young workers from Latin American countries. How would our most essential industries operate without them?
One can sense a sea change in our culture, however. A century ago, immigrants were welcomed (with racist caveats). Now, they are not so welcome. A half-century ago, infrastructure went up in profusion to build out suburbs, freeways, airports, universities, and all the other periphernalia of an optimistic new technological and political age. Now it is crumbling, most suburbs fight against growth, and as a result, housing prices indicate that we are collectively unwilling to accommodate more population in this most concrete of ways.
 |
| The US population is an historical story of growth, but is leveling off. |
So whether we want it to or not, population growth is leveling off and we are approaching a more stable demographic structure, in economic and other terms. This has been an unconscious, subjective response of the population at large to various hedges to growth and optimism. One can see it in the newly embittered politics, which seem more zero-sum instead of seeking growth for all. One can see it in the attitude of the elites who think nothing of grabbing all they can, and then taking some more, without a thought for the future of the collective culture or the downtrodden and "essential" workers who make it all go. One can see it in the increasingly dystopian futures shown by Hollywood. And one can see it in the degradation of resources, as forests burn up, aquifers dry out, fisheries are fished out, and the air itself turns toxic. On an economic level, key resources are ever-harder to come by, and clearly are not sustainable systems. I have been reading a book profiling the Anaconda mining company, which dug completely through the legendary copper deposits of Butte Montana in under a century, ending in the 1980s and leaving an enormous superfund site featuring a tourist overlook. The same story happens in lumber, fisheries, aquifers, soil health, phosphate and nitrogen pollution / misuse, and many other resources. It is inevitable, for instance, that the landfills of today will be the mines of tomorrow.
So, we can sense that our way of life is reaching a stopping point. Objectively, we are living far beyond the Earth's carrying capacity even at current population. The issues go far beyond the urgent need to stop CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, to the whole array of resources we use. Humanity has experienced several resource crunches before, such as hunting out the megafauna of the Americas by the First Peoples, and various island colonizations that ended in degradation, extinction, and depopulation. We don't want to go there.
Economics holds forth the hope of growth and adaptation even in the midst of static or declining population, resource constraints and degradation. We can mine minerals from the sea floor, or on the moon! Well, this is not looking at the problem realistically, let alone sustainably. A sustainable system will recycle all metals, draw energy solely from clean sources, and insulate the biosphere from our wastes- solid, chemical, and gaseous. Where growth economics prices only human resource acquisition and drives organizations to offload waste and degradation as "free", sustainable economics prices in all the externalities that affect the future ability of the Earth to support us.
Capitalism is, needless to say, not situated to do this, by its nature and design. Sustainable economics needs the state and other communal organizations to set the prices and rules within which capitalist organizations can operate, for the safety of the biosphere not to mention our own future. While regulation for various public goods is not a new paradigm, regulation for a thoroughly sustainable Earth system would be. We are far from that currently, even in the most progressive precincts. That is one reason why the strength of political systems is so important now. Frustratingly, they are going in the opposite direction, under precisely the ecological and other growth-stunting stresses that cry out for communal and forward-thinking solutions.
