Growth and Regeneration
How fitting were the letters (Nov. 27) in response to the benighted piece by Richard L. Weiss on the putative dangers of a no-growth philosophy in the light of your poignant warning (“Dwindling Wildlife,” Editorial, Nov. 24) respecting the loss of our natural heritage in California--land, water, animals and birds alike. Why is the distinction between growth and regeneration so carelessly, if not willfully, obscured in any discussion of the future of economic health of our society?
Is there a political figure in view who dares to speak of a prosperous steady-state economy wherein ongoing innovation, reconstruction and revitalization sustain a healthy economy in the absence of net growth? It would seem an article of faith that if our economy fails to grow continuously --let us say at a rate of 3% per year--we are headed for hard times, if not disaster. It takes little mathematical acuity to recognize that a seemingly innocuous annual growth rate of 3% represents a doubling time of about 20 years. To speak euphemistically of economic growth cannot hide the fact that in the end such growth must be linked to the depletion of natural resources--oil, gas, forests, land and water--on ad infinitum.
Contemporary mythology says science will save us; we have always come through. Yet there is just so much sunlight that can be intercepted by green plants to convert light-energy to chemical energy in the process of photosynthesis that sustains our food chains. In truth, all flesh is grass, and fusion energy will not feed the proliferating hungry of the world in the future. Nor will we (nor should we) make the deserts bloom, for the bulk of effectively arable land is already under intense cultivation, and to spread the boundaries of agriculture to any significant extent is precluded both by natural constraints, and by cost-effectiveness.
Living in a steady-state may prove man’s greatest challenge and, in the end, the star in his crown. Although historically societal growth has often been impressive, it has been sustained by a seemingly limitless natural bounty.
In a society as advanced as ours, a steady-state neither stifles progress nor limits opportunity; rather there is a never-ending need for regeneration and modernization as discovery and innovation change the world around us. Modern man prides himself on the elegance of his technical achievements. Yet our habitat--the earth itself--continues to be degraded at an alarming pace, the major cause being population growth. Successful steady-state planning demands a steady-state population.
GEORGE G. LATIES
Los Angeles