Discussion
Zero growth is contrary to the natural patterns of life. Life is dynamic and cyclic. As any bicyclist knows only too well, you have to keep moving not to fall. Everything which is born will peak, decline and die. A world without growth is a dead one.
The United Nations medium population forecast is artificial, eventually reaching zero growth at a fertility rate of 2.1 (the replacement ratio). The fertility rate in industrial countries is around 1.6 (44% of the world population has a rate less than 2.1) whereas it is about 4 in developing, giving a world average rate of 3. The developing countries are already beginning to copy the developed countries, and will follow their example so that fertility will decline to less than 1.6. Spain has the lowest rate at 1.15. ; and Bangladesh has reduced its rate from 6.2 to 3.4 in less than 10 years, which is more than occurred in the preceding two centuries.
We no longer face a world population explosion, but rather an implosion of educated people. Educated women do not want anymore to stay at home after having one or two children. Only uneducated women who are obliged to stay at home, as for example in Talaban society will continue to have large families ; the children being useful to search for wood and water.
Your proposal to freeze trade is unfair. Small countries will be prevented from advancing, while the richer parts of large countries, such as United States, will be able to progress at the expense of the poorer parts. Luis Klema is right in proposing to limit the freeze at the world level. But what is the point in proposing a freeze, which would take about 50 years to implement in pratice, when the world population will decline from 2050 in any case. The best 1999 forecast by the UN is the low/medium scenario which peaks in 2050 at around 7.5 billion.
US official forecasts reject any decline in population. The US Bureau of Census forecasts that the US fertility rate, which is now 2, will rise to 2.25 by 2050, That puts it above the rates of India or Mexico, which is utterly unrealistic --- unless US is run by Talibans. The forecast for the USA is 350 millions in 2050, compared with 275 to day Immigration into the USA (17 millions from 1970 to 1995) will have to increase to meet the forecast, with all the attendant problems.
You are right to say that growth is often associated with prosperity, mainly with GDP. I recommend visiting the Redefining Progress site : http://www.rprogress.org/pubs/gpi1998/gpi1998_execsum.html http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/ecbig/gdp.htm The largest growth in America is private debt as to-day American consumers borrow one billion dollars every day, mainly from the Japanese.
Politicians love growth as it offers a solution to problems that they cannot solve now. Growth is a politicians’ heaven. They do not want to speak about decline. US officials cannot bring themselves to accept a decline in population while happy to do so for Europe : Spain will decline from 40 millions now to 30 in 2050.
The main problem is that present population is wasting the inheritance of our children, mainly in respect of energy. In particular, the American way of life is based on cheap energy, with gasoline being cheaper (excluding tax) than bottled water. Per capita, Americans use twice as much energy as do the Europeans. Houses are not built to last, being easily destroyed by storm or fire, and insulation is very poor.
In brief, instead of promoting zero growth, I think it would be better to propose that US energy consumption be cut by half to a level equivalent to European consumption par capita and that US women increase their fertility rate to avoid excessive immigration.
RESPONSE FROM KEN MEYERCORD
Life is certainly dynamic, and often cyclical. One of those cycles, unfortunately, is over-growth followed by catastrophic decline. That particular cycle, it seems, we humans, with our vaunted intelligence, could avoid.
I do not agree that "a world without growth is a dead one". There is no reason why progress, and change, cannot continue within a framework of zero growth. Moreover, your statement implies that most of human history, in which growth was barely perceptible, was moribund. I think the people who lived in those static societies would disagree with you.
I also do not agree that my proposed freeze in world trade will prevent small countries from advancing. Many small developed countries, such as Holland and Denmark, have already advanced as far as they can from their resource base. With or without a trade freeze, their future prosperity will not be dependent on expanding utilization of their natural resources, but, as it is now, on the skills of their citizenry. There is no reason they cannot continue to benefit from their talented human resource within a framework of zero growth.
As for small undeveloped countries, I agree that on the surface zero growth would seem to be a death sentence. But, as I argue in my piece "Growth and Prosperity", if we look at the real consequences of growth in these countries - the expulsion of peasants off the land, the frittering away of investment loans in foreign bank accounts, the destruction of the natural environment - it is not clear that growth has been of any benefit to the masses of the people. It has, however, been of great benefit to the developed world which depends on these countries for its raw materials. Moreover, whatever benefit has trickled down to the people of the Third World from the exploitation of their natural resources in the past is likely to be greatly reduced in the coming century as their easily tappable resources have already been exploited. If growth has been so good for these countries, why are they in the predicament they find themselves in today? Zero growth, in the developed world at least, might be a boon to the world's poor.
I agree that politicians love growth, and they aren't the only ones. But this does not make it right or necessary or inevitable. Your proposal to cut U.S. energy consumption in half is a good one, but our politicians won't like it. Should you, therefore, withdraw your proposal? Kicking the money-grubbers out of our earthly temple will not be easy; I am very much aware of that. But we owe it to the future generations all decent people in the world today worry about to try.