On the subject of a Steady-State Economy
Discussing a concept does not necessarily imply the desire to forcefully impose it upon anyone. In the case of steady-state economics, such forceful imposition itself would eliminate the benefits of the concept itself.
A steady-state economy is one which does not require material growth for its operation and ultimate survival, unlike the current economic regime where GDP growth and other such factors are deemed vital. Such an economic system should be seen as the ultimate fate for humanity wishing to maintain itself in a healthy state.
Issues such as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere aside, physics alone will eventually take the initiative to dispose of infinite-growth ideology. However, human beings must be aware of ecological limits and the consequences and limitations of using finite, concentrated energy sources (fossil fuels) to overcome these ecological limits particularly if the population is to grow and/or increase per-head consumption levels.
Unfortunately, a cultural divide has developed whereby the discussion and proposal of alternatives to infinite growth on a finite planet incites sentiments that someone is trying to impose authoritarian rule/take away my freedom/make me into a drone/take away my masculinity/change my religion/ad infinitum. The idea of no economic growth runs counter to the core of modern economics, hence the rabid vitriol from right-wing groups who are happy with the social structure provided by these economics.
Just because your aunt is a vegetarian who speaks to you about the ecological consequences of large-scale animal husbandry does not mean that she is part of an underground society wishing to eradicate steaks from planet earth. Just because the government mandates that automobiles driving on public highways meet a minimum efficiency, noise, and emissions standard does not mean that some commie-ecofemme-hippie-greenie is coming to take away your testicles. Saying that technology has ecological consequences does not imply an outright rejection of said technology. Saying that an excessive number of human beings has an ecological consequence does not imply desire for a holocaust.
The combination of talk radio paranoia and brain-dead "Green™" fashion trends acts only to undermine sane and realistic discussion about ecology and the fact that human beings are part of the environment and rely upon the environment rather than simply existing as a separate entity which draws resources and expels wastes with no impact upon itself.
CREATED/WRITTEN: 2011-04-08 01:04