When the Polynesian inhabitants of Easter Island first began to carve Moai, the enormous monolithic human figures, their island was lush and filled with birds and animals. Erecting Moai, which could be up to 10 meters high and weighing up to 75 tonnes, were truly a sophisticated intellectual and physical feat. But soon, tribes began competing to erect larger and more sophisticated sculptures. A lack of foresight left them using resources at increasingly unsustainable rates:
Forests were clear-cut for canoes, ropes and firewood. Farms producing sweet potatoes, taro and sugarcane stripped soils of available nutrients. Bird, fish and porpoise populations dwindled to extinction by overhunting. Blind to the impact that a growing population would have on the environment, inhabitants used up the island’s resources until there was nothing left.
Clearly, our small planet has limited resources and unsustainable growth can lead to a society’s demise. Amazingly, most economists have not cared to heed these warnings. One group that has, is known as the school of ecological economics, which uses the phrase “uneconomic growth” to refer to economic expansion that depletes valuable resources in a way that makes us worse off:
When the economy’s expansion encroaches too much on its surrounding ecosystem, we will begin to sacrifice natural capital (such as fish, minerals and fossil fuels) that is worth more than the man-made capital (such as roads, factories and appliances) added by the growth. We will then have what I call uneconomic growth, producing “bads” faster than goods—making us poorer, not richer.
-Herman Daly
The goal is often referred to as a “steady-state economy,” (which is different than the steady state considered in the Solow growth model). Here, the economy is stable in size, only fluctuating mildly, and it remains within ecological limits. An important aspect of such a school of thought is the interdisciplinary nature, which requires input from natural and social scientists of all sorts.
A steady state economy, therefore, aims for stable or mildly fluctuating levels in population and consumption of energy and materials. Birth rates equal death rates, and production rates equal depreciation rates.
Loads of information can be found at http://steadystate.org/
This is a racist agenda masquerading as an academic exercise. Now that white countries are developed, lets constrain the only proven anti poverty program so rich suburban people can feel good about the environment. The 2 billion poor people in India, China and Africa will have to wait to climb out of poverty to maintain sustainability and make sure there is enough tuna for sushi. Economic growth is the only vehicle to eliminate the desperate conditions in poor counties — ecological economics will only increase the burden on the poor.
As Pope Benedict notes in Caritas in Veritate
“…it should also be stressed that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense. “
What evidence exists that Easter Island had “was lush and filled with birds and animals” upon the arrival of humans? Note that Easter Island is unlike tropical Polynesian islands. Also where is the evidence that ” tribes began competing to erect larger statues”? This is claimed – but based on what?
@bob:
“8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of wealth) remains an appropriate goal.”
You should read before pointing to racist masquerades. Given that this is available in the mission statement, it seems you had no wish to read and try to grasp their points.
For everyone in the world to live like Americans, we would need three times the resources of planet Earth. We need to think in terms of what is possible. It is hard to argue that EE is a “racist agenda” when fair distribution is one of their key aspects to a sustainable economy. It does challenge us in the first world to think about how and why we consume, so that we may do so wisely and at sustainable levels. Instead of achieving sustainability by keeping poor countries poor, I think most steady-staters would advocate that the wealthy countries consume less.
Also see the “Limits to Growth” study by the Club of Rome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
Carl, I must admit that I am no archaeologist. I am just using the traditional story, as told by Bahn and Flenley in “The Enigmas of Easter Island” and Jared Diamond in “Collapse.” It seems to be well accepted by scientists that Easter Island was once verdant, and then suffered depletion leading to collapse; the debates seem to revolve around when it happened and exactly why, and which factors were most important. Is this not the case?