Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Re: Economic Growth

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marimike6@cs.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Re: Economic Growth
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:23:21 EST

Michael Kramer writes

>I'm not sure that economic growth is really the problem. As population
grows, more goods and services are needed. In permaculture we discuss the
need to limits our needs and conserve resource use, and to use ecologically
appropriate materials, but growth is inevitable and necessary. I'd counter
that the central issue is linking resource regeneration to economic activity
so as to account for the cost of resource use.

That would be a beautiful world to live in, Mike. But the issue is hopelessly
politicised in this country, and comes down to votes. You may be familiar
with the Willamette Valley dispute, where they opened up the region to potato
farmers in order to justify building a dam. Then some years later they
noticed
that subspecies of salmon was dying as they weren't leaving enough water in
the
river at spawning time for them to keep their backs wet. And biologists
advised changing the seasonal regimen so not as much water would be drawn
down at
the critical time.

But there were by then more potato farmers than fishermen, so the routine
since then has been to draw down so drastically as to erase these pestiferous
pisces, making the question moot.

Welcome to Century 21, Mike. We do things democratically around here, and 51%
of the public seems to have accepted the need for Social Darwinism (even
while many still accept Creationism). If they say the fish gotta go, the fish
gotta go. We reasonable sorts are relegated to the universities, where we're
called lefty liberals.

There's a war out there that's being won by crafty campaigners like Karl
Rove, not by sensible planners who can create a greater order of priorities
by
allocating limited resources in the real world of tomorrow to the greatest
needs
of humanity. He has made the deeper study of what it is that motivates frail
flesh when it's too busy with the job and the kids to do much theoretical
intellectualizing.

This seems to go over most people's heads. They like the profit motive just
fine, if that's what we've decided makes the world go 'round. And if that
tells
them they have to drive a Hummer because it makes them feel like a million
bucks-- what's wrong with that? Sinclair Lewis used to call such people
Babbits
a long time ago. They set the tone, unfortunately, for the American Way of
Life. It will take more than education to turn them around.

Which leaves us with a relatively small community-- one leaving a tiny
economic footprint on the world, since we use resources lightly. I kind of
think of
us as the Indians, living in small pockets outside the mainstream until gas
deposits under our feet need exploring.

Voters are too quick to think that's just the way it is, and get used to
living in a world where the wild places all get developed in the end. They're
not
too comfortable with the existence of people who have alternative life
styles.


You have to put on your friendly face when trying to explain things to them
in the light of the spirit of fair play. They think we're at war. And that
they're going to win.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page