Ready, Steady-state, Go!

Tonight's journey started with a read of Norm's post, "The Implications Of A Zero Growth Society," which was more intriguing than I originally though it would be. He recaps some arguements and concepts having to do with creating a no growth, zero growth, or solid state economy. These movements and concepts are in reaction to the radical discovery that we live in a bubble which contains finite amounts of resources and fragile organic ecosystems with limited carrying capacities both for extraction of materials and for absorption of wastes. Norm notes that, "our global consumer culture, and the nature of our economic system is predicated on constant economic growth.  In order to address the problem of global warming we will need a different culture and a different economic system." Which is to say both that the need for a different economic system is great and that it would require a very radical change. 
Further down the rabit hole we go. Norm linked to a very interesting paper by Ted Trainer called, "The radical implications of a zero growth economy." Trainer's paper is very interesting as I have to admit liking the idea of a steady state economy, but also not really knowing much about what that would entail. As is implied by the title of his paper, this kind of economy would not look like ours with the simple adjustment of no growth, but would need to be radically different. He states, "It is not just a matter of getting to an economy that does not grow any further; the imperative is to reach a steady state economy in which production, consumption, investment, trade and GDP are very small fractions of their present quantities."
I would love to go into the deeper mechanics of a steady state economy at some other time, yet for now will instead point out some very interesting issues that come along with it. Inequality is a fond topic of mine. In this economic system we accept a large amount of economic inequality as legitimate or necessary or inevitable. Part of how we do that is because of the mythology that says anyone can be rich and live the American Dream if they just work hard enough. The other way we do it is through the mythology that economic growth is the way to eliminate economic inequality as it becomes the "tide which raises all boats." Trainer points out that economic growth is actually the concept and mechanism by which economic inequality is created and perpetuated. In a steady state economy everyone understand and finally acknowledges that the economic pie cannot simply grow forever, but instead is a fixed size. If this were the case then, "inequality would have to be addressed and dealt with consciously and deliberately, involving social decisions regarding distribution and fair shares...which again would involve a very different kind of society" notes Trainer. So in addition to being a solution to or a necessity of global climate change, the steady state economy might be a place where we all have to get serious about equity and finally have no greed inducing mythologies to hold us back. 
Another interesting tid bit about life in a steady state economy relates to what the purposes of social structures and the meaning of life really are. In our current system the meaning of our existence is tied to consumption and accumulation of wealth and material goods, and the social structures are for the purpose of facilitating those goals for a few, supported and made possible by the many. In a steady state economy, the purpose of social structures is to facilitate a meaningful and quality life. Trainer explicates that, "People would have to be concerned to produce and acquire only that stable quantity of goods and services that is sufficient for a satisfactory quality of life, and to seek no increase whatsoever in savings, wealth, possessions etc. It would be difficult to exaggerate the magnitude of this cultural transition."
Speaking of the cultural transition, I found this amazing speech by Christine Milne, a senator from the state of Tasmania in Australia. She is speaking about the kind of economy they need to build in Australia in order to create the world in which they wish to live. She asserts, “Surely it’s time that those who advocate economic growth derived from resource extraction and pollution as the major path be the ones labeled wacky, loopy, irresponsible, divorced from reality or connected to the CIA.” I wonder how long it will be before top elected officials are saying things such as this, and getting re-elected after doing something about it? I do not ask this rhetorically either. We must move not only beyond our false mythologies and conveiniently forgotten history of the evolution of these human created social structures brought about by power and those who wield it--not simply by "good" ideas benevolently implimented and with unintended consequences--but also beyond alternatives which leave the core structure of this system intact. We must create a system which facilitates true human happiness and harmony with our natural ecosystem.