From hawkman11@hotmail.com Fri Sep 3 20:34:37 2004 Received: from mxe5.u.washington.edu (mxe5.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.168]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.08) with ESMTP id i843YbnE049628 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:34:37 -0700 Received: from hotmail.com (bay12-f35.bay12.hotmail.com [64.4.35.35]) by mxe5.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.08) with ESMTP id i843YagB017347 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:34:36 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:34:36 -0700 Received: from 4.243.176.93 by by12fd.bay12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:34:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [4.243.176.93] X-Originating-Email: [hawkman11@hotmail.com] X-Sender: hawkman11@hotmail.com From: "stan moore" To: consbio@u.washington.edu Subject: Could Steady State Economics Provide a False Sense of Accomplishment? Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:34:35 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2004 03:34:36.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A0076A0:01C49230] X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.001, __HAS_MSN_RCVD_DAV 0, __HAS_XOIP 0, __HAS_MSN_ORIG_EMAIL 0, __HAS_MSN_FROM 0, __FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __EVITE_CTYPE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __CT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __HAS_XOAT 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __RCVD_BY_HOTMAIL 0' Certainly there is good to be said about desiring a steady state economy, in view of the cultural history of modern man; especially western technology-based civilization. One can certainly find a direct correlation between loss of biodiversity and economic growth, as has been demonstrated in various papers by Brian Czech and others. But, is setting a goal of a steady state economy foolproof? Are there ANY negative implications possible in setting a goal of a steady state economy? Is it possible that some growth economies (in theory) could be more ecologically appropriate than some steady state economies? Is there a valid reason to compare the QUALITY of an economy (based on its ecological footprint) rather than the SIZE or SIZE TREND of an economy? The major concern I have in exploring this issue is that talk by conservationists of steady state economics in the abstract may give the public the mistaken opinion that ANY level of a steady state economy is ecologically benign or acceptable to conservationists. Yet, if we were to freeze the size (qand structure) of the U.S. total economy at the present level, would we reverse the loss of biodiversity and recover our endangered species? Hardly! Yet, even within a growth economy (in theory) we could apply principles of ecological economics (as compared with steady state economics) and improve the plight of some or several species, could we not? If we regulated and managed industry in such a way as to make anti-pollution efforts profitable, such as by manufacturing and deploying technology-based infrastructure and equipment to reduce pollution, is there any reason we could not benefit biodiversity (at some level) while growing or maintaining a large economy? In other words, could we not practice some level of natural capitalism (as suggested by Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins) even within an overly large economy compared with optimal? Or, in theory, if the lessons learned by conservationists over the decades in Western technological society were applied to a newly discovered, formerly uninhabited island of huge size in some biosphere, could we not grow an economy from scratch using priniciples of sustainable agriculture, manufacturing, natural resource utilization, etc.? This is purely a THEORETIC construct, but I believe we should be able to agree that it is possible at some level to grow an economy from scratch in a way vastly superior and perhaps instrinsically sustainable for lengthy periods of time, if not indefinitely, if we were wise. My point in all this theoretical discussion is not that we should abandon a goal of steady state economics. I am asserting that we must provide more specificity in arguing for a steady state economy, because it is possible to shift from a growth economy to a steady state economy of comparable size and structure without doing wildlife, habitat, or biodiversity much good. And the practicioners of capitalist, consumerist, ecologically ignorant economics could use pursuit of steady state economics as a lever against conservation, and they certainly would if given the opportunity. Instead of arguing for a steady state economy in the abstract, somehow we have to define the parameters and structures of such an economy, or at least identify the philosophical parameters of such an economy if we really are going to protect biodiversity. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA hawkman11@hotmail.com .