Special report: How our economy is killing the Earth - opinion - 16 October 2008 - Print Article - New Scientist

Get Feed

Description

A growing band of experts are looking at [sustainability] figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.This, of course, is economic heresy. Growth to most economists is as essential as the air we breathe. In this special issue, New Scientist brings together key thinkers from politics, economics and philosophy who profoundly disagree with the growth dogma but agree with the scientists monitoring our fragile biosphere.

Original URL

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg20026786.000&print=true

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg20026786.000&print=true

Comments

• Public Comments

  • Mark Szpakowski

    14 months ago

    
    
    

    A financial system built on assumptions of limitless growth is clearly a catastrophic absurdity and needs evolution in its very DNA, to include repressor as well as expressor genes.

    A financial system built on assumptions of limitless growth is clearly a catastrophic absurdity and needs evolution in its very DNA, to include repressor as well as expressor genes.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Global Economy, Buddhist Geeks, Financial and Economic Global Crisis, The Singularity, Climate Change, This Little Twine of Mine (szpak's), Futures

  • Mark Szpakowski

    14 months ago

    
    
    

    

    Captain, the singularity's going the wrong way!

    <img src="http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20026786.000/mg20026786.000-1_1701.jpg" width="510" height="324" /> <p>Captain, the singularity's going the wrong way!</p>

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: The Singularity

  • 14 months ago

    
    
    

    If we focus on the issue of growth, we will necessarily fail. Ask the right questions and the answers will filter in.
    
    The question is not, "How do we curb limitless growth?" We have to bear in mind the fallow principle of the Middle Ages where land that had been over-ploughed was permitted to rest for a few years for nutrient restoration.
    
    Equally, we have to pose the question: "HOW DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE AN INVENTORY SYSTEM that more closely matches demand with supply?"
    
    Keynes and Co did not have computers. We do.
    
    Yet for all this technology, JIT (Just-in-Time) is applied to certain goods like cars and washing machines but not to increasing the efficiency of food production or the manufacturing of disposable and high turnover items like clothing, food and cosmetics, and their attendant packaging.
    
    The power of social networks has not been fully explored or realized yet.
    
    In my model, manufacturers wouldn't go to a dozen product managers to ask them to invent new products for the next 3-5 year horizon --- for which they have to guesstimate the likely demand (and thereby over-shoot production because they have unreliable figures). They would come directly to a social network of each country and ask the users, "What product would you be 80% certain that you want to buy. These are the designs we've come up with. Please can everyone vote within 6 weeks which one they want. You may also suggest improvements and if it goes to market we'll share sales revenues with you. Once we have all your date only then will we manufacture it, according to the demands of the people on this social network. If you buy via this social network, we will donate 10% of net profits to a charity."
    
    In this way, there is growth, efficiency, reward and win-win (people and planet). Manufacturers don't have to waste so much paper on print advertising or materials to make items for which there is not a demand match with their projections. Consumers actually get the product they want and need.
    
    The Keynesian models and their subsequent revision by the monetarists is predicated on the economists not having access or the inclination towards technology and the technologists knowing insufficient amounts about how each econometric benchmark is integrated into a model.
    
    Maybe it's time to re-think it along the lines of synergizing both and ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

    If we focus on the issue of growth, we will necessarily fail. Ask the right questions and the answers will filter in.<br /><br />The question is not, "How do we curb limitless growth?" We have to bear in mind the fallow principle of the Middle Ages where land that had been over-ploughed was permitted to rest for a few years for nutrient restoration.<br /><br />Equally, we have to pose the question: "HOW DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE AN INVENTORY SYSTEM that more closely matches demand with supply?"<br /><br />Keynes and Co did not have computers. We do. <br /><br />Yet for all this technology, JIT (Just-in-Time) is applied to certain goods like cars and washing machines but not to increasing the efficiency of food production or the manufacturing of disposable and high turnover items like clothing, food and cosmetics, and their attendant packaging. <br /><br />The power of social networks has not been fully explored or realized yet.<br /><br />In my model, manufacturers wouldn't go to a dozen product managers to ask them to invent new products for the next 3-5 year horizon --- for which they have to guesstimate the likely demand (and thereby over-shoot production because they have unreliable figures). They would come directly to a social network of each country and ask the users, "What product would you be 80% certain that you want to buy. These are the designs we've come up with. Please can everyone vote within 6 weeks which one they want. You may also suggest improvements and if it goes to market we'll share sales revenues with you. Once we have all your date only then will we manufacture it, according to the demands of the people on this social network. If you buy via this social network, we will donate 10% of net profits to a charity."<br /><br />In this way, there is growth, efficiency, reward and win-win (people and planet). Manufacturers don't have to waste so much paper on print advertising or materials to make items for which there is not a demand match with their projections. Consumers actually get the product they want and need. <br /><br />The Keynesian models and their subsequent revision by the monetarists is predicated on the economists not having access or the inclination towards technology and the technologists knowing insufficient amounts about how each econometric benchmark is integrated into a model.<br /><br />Maybe it's time to re-think it along the lines of synergizing both and ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: The Singularity

  • 14 months ago

    
    
    

    If we focus on the issue of growth, we will necessarily fail. Ask the right questions and the answers will filter in.
    
    The question is not, "How do we curb limitless growth?" We have to bear in mind the fallow principle of the Middle Ages where land that had been over-ploughed was permitted to rest for a few years for nutrient restoration.
    
    Equally, we have to pose the question: "HOW DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE AN INVENTORY SYSTEM that more closely matches demand with supply?"
    
    Keynes and Co did not have computers. We do.
    
    Yet for all this technology, JIT (Just-in-Time) is applied to certain goods like cars and washing machines but not to increasing the efficiency of food production or the manufacturing of disposable and high turnover items like clothing, food and cosmetics, and their attendant packaging.
    
    The power of social networks has not been fully explored or realized yet.
    
    In my model, manufacturers wouldn't go to a dozen product managers to ask them to invent new products for the next 3-5 year horizon --- for which they have to guesstimate the likely demand (and thereby over-shoot production because they have unreliable figures). They would come directly to a social network of each country and ask the users, "What product would you be 80% certain that you want to buy. These are the designs we've come up with. Please can everyone vote within 6 weeks which one they want. You may also suggest improvements and if it goes to market we'll share sales revenues with you. Once we have all your date only then will we manufacture it, according to the demands of the people on this social network. If you buy via this social network, we will donate 10% of net profits to a charity."
    
    In this way, there is growth, efficiency, reward and win-win (people and planet). Manufacturers don't have to waste so much paper on print advertising or materials to make items for which there is not a demand match with their projections. Consumers actually get the product they want and need.
    
    The Keynesian models and their subsequent revision by the monetarists is predicated on the economists not having access or the inclination towards technology and the technologists knowing insufficient amounts about how each econometric benchmark is integrated into a model.
    
    Maybe it's time to re-think it along the lines of synergizing both and ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

    If we focus on the issue of growth, we will necessarily fail. Ask the right questions and the answers will filter in.<br /><br />The question is not, "How do we curb limitless growth?" We have to bear in mind the fallow principle of the Middle Ages where land that had been over-ploughed was permitted to rest for a few years for nutrient restoration.<br /><br />Equally, we have to pose the question: "HOW DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE AN INVENTORY SYSTEM that more closely matches demand with supply?"<br /><br />Keynes and Co did not have computers. We do. <br /><br />Yet for all this technology, JIT (Just-in-Time) is applied to certain goods like cars and washing machines but not to increasing the efficiency of food production or the manufacturing of disposable and high turnover items like clothing, food and cosmetics, and their attendant packaging. <br /><br />The power of social networks has not been fully explored or realized yet.<br /><br />In my model, manufacturers wouldn't go to a dozen product managers to ask them to invent new products for the next 3-5 year horizon --- for which they have to guesstimate the likely demand (and thereby over-shoot production because they have unreliable figures). They would come directly to a social network of each country and ask the users, "What product would you be 80% certain that you want to buy. These are the designs we've come up with. Please can everyone vote within 6 weeks which one they want. You may also suggest improvements and if it goes to market we'll share sales revenues with you. Once we have all your date only then will we manufacture it, according to the demands of the people on this social network. If you buy via this social network, we will donate 10% of net profits to a charity."<br /><br />In this way, there is growth, efficiency, reward and win-win (people and planet). Manufacturers don't have to waste so much paper on print advertising or materials to make items for which there is not a demand match with their projections. Consumers actually get the product they want and need. <br /><br />The Keynesian models and their subsequent revision by the monetarists is predicated on the economists not having access or the inclination towards technology and the technologists knowing insufficient amounts about how each econometric benchmark is integrated into a model.<br /><br />Maybe it's time to re-think it along the lines of synergizing both and ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Financial and Economic Global Crisis

  • glennmiles

    14 months ago

    
    
    

    As part of the process of developing the science of biomimetics, an appraisal of natural and human design derived a handful of fundamental system properties, one of which related to the predominatiung use of energy in the design's mechanism. Nearly three-quarters of human designs are characterised as energy-dependent whereas only one in twenty of nature's designs are energy-dependent. This means that the innovation and the associated IP that is being generated now is mostly predicated upon the employment of energy as the main system mechanism because the component sub-systems are mostly energy-dependent. From this point, the market fills with products that have an intrinsic reliance on energy. In addition to adopting sustainable strategies at the top, there is still a need to adopt sustainable practices at the bottom. All designers should use biomimetic/biomimicry/bionic principles all of the time for every system and every component. If that happened we would not achieve the "95% score" that nature achieves, but we might do better than our current 25%. The best outcome will derive from employing sustainable processes as far upstream as is practicable.
    An interesting avenue to pursue is to determine what part of a system's complexity budget is derived from the inherent energy-dependent nature of its fundamental components.

    As part of the process of developing the science of biomimetics, an appraisal of natural and human design derived a handful of fundamental system properties, one of which related to the predominatiung use of energy in the design's mechanism. Nearly three-quarters of human designs are characterised as energy-dependent whereas only one in twenty of nature's designs are energy-dependent. This means that the innovation and the associated IP that is being generated now is mostly predicated upon the employment of energy as the main system mechanism because the component sub-systems are mostly energy-dependent. From this point, the market fills with products that have an intrinsic reliance on energy. In addition to adopting sustainable strategies at the top, there is still a need to adopt sustainable practices at the bottom. All designers should use biomimetic/biomimicry/bionic principles all of the time for every system and every component. If that happened we would not achieve the "95% score" that nature achieves, but we might do better than our current 25%. The best outcome will derive from employing sustainable processes as far upstream as is practicable.<br />An interesting avenue to pursue is to determine what part of a system's complexity budget is derived from the inherent energy-dependent nature of its fundamental components.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: The Singularity

    • Mark Szpakowski

      13 months ago

      
      
      

      I wonder if something analogous can be said of the current financial system, where money is generated by issuing debt, which needs to be payed back with interest, and where the money to pay that interest doesn't come from the existing pool, but from - more debt! Our financial system is 100% energy-dependent: it needs constant infusion of energy (more money) into the system. Not a biomimetic system.

      I wonder if something analogous can be said of the current financial system, where money is generated by issuing debt, which needs to be payed back with interest, and where the money to pay that interest doesn't come from the existing pool, but from - more debt! Our financial system is 100% energy-dependent: it needs constant infusion of energy (more money) into the system. Not a biomimetic system.

      • Some HTML is allowed.
      • Reply
      • Cancel
      • Submit
      Commented in: The Singularity

  • Geoffrey Ames

    14 months ago

    
    
    

    "It is a vision John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of classical economics, would have approved of. In his Principles of Political Economy, published in 1848, he predicted that once the work of economic growth was done, a "stationary" economy would emerge in which we could focus on human improvement: 'There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress... for improving the art of living and much more likelihood of it being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'
    
    Today's economists dismiss such ideas as naive and utopian, but with financial markets crashing, food prices spiralling, the world warming and peak oil approaching (or passed), they are becoming harder than ever to ignore."
    
    Reading this, I keep recycling this nagging thought: will the end of economic growth result from the reduced use of fossil fuels... or will the collapse of economic growth cause result in the decreased use of fossil fuels? Whaddayathink?

    "It is a vision John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of classical economics, would have approved of. In his Principles of Political Economy, published in 1848, he predicted that once the work of economic growth was done, a "stationary" economy would emerge in which we could focus on human improvement: 'There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress... for improving the art of living and much more likelihood of it being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on.'<br /><br />Today's economists dismiss such ideas as naive and utopian, but with financial markets crashing, food prices spiralling, the world warming and peak oil approaching (or passed), they are becoming harder than ever to ignore."<br /><br />Reading this, I keep recycling this nagging thought: will the end of economic growth result from the reduced use of fossil fuels... or will the collapse of economic growth cause result in the decreased use of fossil fuels? Whaddayathink?

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Polytopia

  • 14 months ago

    
    
    

    Glenn,
    
    I agree with you: "The best outcome will derive from employing sustainable processes as far upstream as is practicable."
    
    That's why I'm saying there has to be a fundamental overhaul at product design stage --- long before all wastage of the packaging, shipping and marketing downstream to consumers. Moreover, companies are wasting energy maintaining customer databases because they imagine this gives them a comparative advantage (Ricardo) of being able to tailor according to their needs. The truth is that information on those databases are duplicated thousand's of times over. There's no need for that upstream energy inefficiency.
    
    A consumer's comprehensive profile could easily be shared between Nike, Google, Sony, Prada, Toni&Guy, Ben&Jerrys, etc. These companies don't directly compete with each other so does 1 consumer's data have to be on all 6 databases, sucking up electricity OR on a single efficient database, accessible to each of the 6?
    
    In the last 2 years there have been preliminary discussions about this type of shared database (part of the Cloud Computing crossed with Green Technology Initiative signed up by the likes of Cisco, EDF and Saatch+Co, so I'm hopeful that upstream changes are being made.

    Glenn,<br /><br />I agree with you: "The best outcome will derive from employing sustainable processes as far upstream as is practicable."<br /><br />That's why I'm saying there has to be a fundamental overhaul at product design stage --- long before all wastage of the packaging, shipping and marketing downstream to consumers. Moreover, companies are wasting energy maintaining customer databases because they imagine this gives them a comparative advantage (Ricardo) of being able to tailor according to their needs. The truth is that information on those databases are duplicated thousand's of times over. There's no need for that upstream energy inefficiency.<br /><br />A consumer's comprehensive profile could easily be shared between Nike, Google, Sony, Prada, Toni&amp;Guy, Ben&amp;Jerrys, etc. These companies don't directly compete with each other so does 1 consumer's data have to be on all 6 databases, sucking up electricity OR on a single efficient database, accessible to each of the 6?<br /><br />In the last 2 years there have been preliminary discussions about this type of shared database (part of the Cloud Computing crossed with Green Technology Initiative signed up by the likes of Cisco, EDF and Saatch+Co, so I'm hopeful that upstream changes are being made.

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: The Singularity

    • . .•∞º˙

      14 months ago

      
      
      

      Regarding the packaging, shipping and marketing issues (which I am keenly involved in on a regular basis) retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target in the US are forcing manufacturers to do just what you are talking about, Twain. As part of their cost-cutting/price reduction to the consumer efforts, they are demanding standardization of goods being transported into their distribution centers, consolidation of packaging materials, sustainability at every stage, etc. They are straight-arming the consumer products manufacturers into these changes and because they are so big, their goals are being reached.
      
      J.I.T. delivery, better forecasting, better transport practices, reduced packaging--they are all being addressed, at least by these big guys. The problem now is that each retailer, in an effort to develop their own paths to sustainability, is enforcing their own "rules of the road" some of which are conflicting with the rules established by others, so once again we are reaching a crunch point, because we don't have global best practices that are being shared.

      Regarding the packaging, shipping and marketing issues (which I am keenly involved in on a regular basis) retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target in the US are forcing manufacturers to do just what you are talking about, Twain. As part of their cost-cutting/price reduction to the consumer efforts, they are demanding standardization of goods being transported into their distribution centers, consolidation of packaging materials, sustainability at every stage, etc. They are straight-arming the consumer products manufacturers into these changes and because they are so big, their goals are being reached.<br /><br />J.I.T. delivery, better forecasting, better transport practices, reduced packaging--they are all being addressed, at least by these big guys. The problem now is that each retailer, in an effort to develop their own paths to sustainability, is enforcing their own "rules of the road" some of which are conflicting with the rules established by others, so once again we are reaching a crunch point, because we don't have global best practices that are being shared.

      • Some HTML is allowed.
      • Reply
      • Cancel
      • Submit
      Commented in: The Singularity

  • 14 months ago

    
    
    

    Geoffrey,
    
    Please also see: http://www.twine.com/item/11jrd26k9-ww/special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth-opinion-16-october-2008-print-article-new-scientist

    Geoffrey,<br /><br />Please also see: <a href="http://www.twine.com/item/11jrd26k9-ww/special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth-opinion-16-october-2008-print-article-new-scientist" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.twine.com/item/11jrd26k9-ww/special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth-opinion-16-october-2008-print-article-new-scientist</a>

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: Polytopia

  • glennmiles

    14 months ago

    
    
    

    Who is providing the technologies for these changes? Is it internal to the big companies, are they pushing their service providers or is it a transition to a new set of providers?

    Who is providing the technologies for these changes? Is it internal to the big companies, are they pushing their service providers or is it a transition to a new set of providers?

    • Some HTML is allowed.
    • Reply
    • Cancel
    • Submit
    Commented in: The Singularity
  Add a Comment

Here's a list of the HTML tags we allow: