Healthy capitalism: neither reality or myth

The difference between the ideal of sustainability and traditional environmentalism is the explicit inclusion of the goals of a sustainable economy and community. I believe a sustainable economy is a growing economy -- it just has to grow in a healthy manner. We are so far from that ideal that its easy to doubt that an economy can grow in a healthy manner -- but it can.

This opinion piece is not great, but I like some of the points it makes:

-- The main point is to argue against an idea that is apparently getting some traction in Europe; that it is possible and desirable to achieve an economy that is stable and does not grow. The author doesn't really make a decent argument against the idea -- he just invokes the faith that innovation, regulation, efficiency and behavior change can overcome the criticisms made by no growth-ers. I happen to have the same faith; though for me its more of a hope. I'm not at all sure we humans have what it takes to find the right balances we need.

-- The author pins some hope on genetically modified (gm) foods. This is a tough one. I am unwilling to support or attack the idea of gm foods on principle, because the potential upside is so huge. The problem is that the downside is just as huge. On some levels, watching genetic engineering appear and grow as a practice feels like it must have to know that the atom was just about to be split for the first time; it's just another way we can destroy the planet and ourselves.

-- I like that the author concedes that "there's something to these critiques." First of all, GDP is a bad metric or prosperity. Using GDP to measure growth assumes every dollar spent is a good thing, and everything dollar not spent (e.g., volunteering, non-tax deductible charity, backyard gardening) is a bad thing. We know that it is not a good thing to spend money buying refrigerators that leak CFCs and to purchase goods made with exploited labor. Consider that our GDP grows if we go out and spend money on gasoline that we dump straight down the drain.

-- The other point the author concedes is that capitalism can have significant negative effects in peoples' lives, including stress, nervous depression, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. I'd suggest this list of capitalism's ills is much too short; it should definitely address the fact that unfettered capitalism increases inequity -- that is the economic distance between the haves and the have nots. Still, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

-- If we are to judge capitalism harshly for its ill effects, we have to remember the benefits we have gained over the last few hundred years. Without an economy that rewards growth, we wouldn't be having this conversation and our breath would be really bad while we didn't have it. What we now consider minor injuries would be lethal, and we'd never have seen this: