Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> 'Growth' occurs in this article so many times because the sort of 
> economics on which it is based is like integral calculus - only able to 
> quantify and deal with the acceleration in change and has no use whatever 
> for something that is stable and sustainable.  We've been burning the 
> candle at both ends and now we've lit it in the middle.

I have long decried unplanned growth, have seen communities destroyed by 
it. A few decades of living in California have convinced me that growth 
creates more problems than it solves. Of course I am not one who prefers 
cities over the hinterlands. Most people in fact still prefer living in 
urban areas, although the trend seems to be in the other direction. A job 
remains the prevailing criterion for choice of place.

The cry for growth is amplified by those who plan to gain 
financially--think Trilateralists--but also by those who sincerely believe 
that a rising tide lifts all ships. Seems to me the tide may run out of 
water. Seems to me that the issue is population versus resources. I gave a 
speech back around 1960 about the effects of population on sustainability. 
While Earth's population growth has not yet attained the dire consequences 
predicted by Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb, it has certainly 
exacerbated all of mankind's challenges. China, India and other 
high-density societies have recognized the potential for disaster.

I think I am too biased against "more is better" to provide a balanced view 
on these things. Certainly, we have not reached the limits of Earth's 
ability to sustain our species, but it sure looks like we are headed in 
that direction. About the only resource we have not figured out how to 
overtax is the sun.