David Cadman

David Cadman “Limits to Growth” Quaker Voices, Volume 1 Number 5, September 2010:

We have a problem of perception. It lies in our understanding of economy. Our present Western (and increasingly Eastern) model of economy is based upon the common presumption that the greatest good for the greatest many comes only from a form of economy in which we are encouraged evermore to increase our consumption of goods and services. This self-concern is supposed to cause a “trickle down” of wealth so the poorest benefit as much as the rich – a win for everybody. To achieve this, our economy is dependent upon, addicted to, growth. But, although this addiction continues, and is espoused by politicians of all kinds, the truth is, the model is not only deeply flawed but leads us, and others, into greater and greater distress.

Economies and markets proceed by rhythmic cycles of growth and decline, ever moving around a tendency to seek an equilibrium upon which they never rest. From time to time, however, this regular rhythm is shaken by what the Austrian economist Josef Schumpeter referred to as “a gale of creative destruction”; a steep upward movement of growth is followed by a plunging decline, which is of such force the conditions of the old economy are swept away and the conditions of a new economy arise. Nothing is the same again. A rueful desire for “business as usual” (however tempting) is tantamount to irresponsibility or denial. This is where we are now.

So what kind of transition might we be in for? The latest update of Limits to Growth, suggests four possible future scenarios and, using my own terms, these can be translated as: limitless growth; benign growth; uncomfortable growth; and catastrophe. The first assumes that as growth (economic and population growth) increases, the natural limits of the Earth grow too, as we use our ingenuity and technology to overcome them. There are no limits. The second assumes that growth continues to such a point that, without harm, it settles below the natural carrying capacity of the Earth. There are limits but with wit and wisdom we learn to live within them. The third scenario also assumes that there are limits but this time, as growth continues, it overshoots carrying capacity and then, somewhat uncomfortably, seeks to find a proper balance and relationship with it. The fourth assumes that there are not only limits but that continuing growth degrades the carrying capacity of the Earth to such an extent economies and populations can no longer be sustained. As the capacity crashes down it brings catastrophe to humankind. It is likely we are already beyond scenarios one and two. At best we are in “overshoot” and at worst we are headed for “catastrophe”.

Nevertheless, the conclusions of Limits to Growth warn us that although such a future is possible it will not be easy. Indeed, the findings suggest that one of the greatest obstacles is us – our inertia and our unwillingness to change, especially corporately and institutionally. Those who benefit from the current system will oppose change and entrenched political, economic, and religious cliques can constrain almost entirely the attempts of an individual or small group to operate by different rules or to attain goals different to those sanctioned by the system. Innovators can be ignored, marginalized, ridiculed, denied promotions or resources or public voices.

Stasis is not an option. Indeed, since time is not on our side, it might be said that the greater the need to avoid catastrophe, the greater is the need not only for technical change and market sensitivity but also for political and social will. Even if, indeed especially if, such a willingness for change is forthcoming, we are in for a period of significant discomfort and transformation – perhaps some kind of a revolution. Without this it is difficult to see how catastrophe can be avoided.