Jay Hanson asks:

Why do you assume that this (saving ourselves from a growth-induced catastrophe - ed.) is possible? Do you have an explicit definition of a "zero-growth" society? What "zero-growth" human society have you ever seen?

Ken Meyercord responds:

You pose three good questions, which I will attempt to answer.

(1) I don't so much assume zero growth is possible as hope that it is. If I were a betting man, I'd bet against it. Still, so long as the chance remains, I'll do my part to encourage actions which I consider necessary. I share your belief that man is first and foremost (and perhaps only, though of late I've begun to wonder if some divine spark is not involved) an animal. How that relates to zero growth is not clear in my mind. Doesn't evolution show that animals instinctively do what is necessary for the preservation of their species? If so, won't man do likewise, perhaps by adopting an ethos of zero growth? Of course, he will attribute his wisdom to his "vaunted intelligence", while you and I snicker over in a corner about what instinctual beasts these creatures called men are. But whether man is saved by what is called "instinct" or "intelligence" really doesn't matter (to me).

(2) Your second question has provoked me into doing something I should have done already: come up with a catchy, one-line definition of "the ethos of zero growth." Before I do that, let me point out that I am referring to an "ethos", a way of looking at the world, a behavior-modifying mentality, something much broader than a simple counting of heads or plotting of statistical charts. How's this: "The ethos of zero growth springs from an appreciation of the finiteness of the earth and leads to a way of thinking and of living reflective of this understanding." I'm afraid that's the best I can do at the moment. For a fuller definition check out "The Zero Growth Creed", if you haven't already.

(3) Being a child of the 20th century I have never seen a zero growth human society. But my reading of history tells me that the sort of growth we have seen over the last 200 years, and the growth mentality it has engendered, is something unique in human experience, something as close to qualitatively different from what man has experienced in the past as is man's distinction from the animals. Certainly history is dotted with what could pass for "growth": the rise of empires and civilizations, mass migrations spurred by population explosions, the exploitation of new resources. But such growth was as often as not offset by what could be termed "anti-growth" (the Dark Ages come to mind). For the average man life was pretty much the same from one generation to the next. Did the life of the ancient Egyptian, for instance, change much over a thousand years, while the empire of the pharoahs expanded and contracted? Or the life of the average Briton as the various invaders swept over the land in recurring waves? To look at one index, the growth of world population by half a billion over the 2000 years prior to 1750 must have seemed imperceptible to each generation, other than localized variations. We must distinguish between change and progress, which has always been and will always be with us, and growth, especially its current peculiar incarnation.

Discussion