Back to Articles and Papers.


"Steady State Economy": Evaluation.
(A rough draft).

Most of the depictions of an acceptable future for humankind and the Earth, including the "Steady State Economy", look very similar--very sketchy, very indistinct, not well defined, with one common feature: they are generated by the distress that humans find themselves in currently; Any place that looks only a bit more comfortable than the overall situation we find ourselves in now, looks as desirable to us in this state of emergency.

Some of those depictions are vaguely being described as "sustainable", which make them a bit more attractive to us, but since "sustainability" has so many different definitions, the resulting depictions do not become thus any less vague.

At any point, there can only exist one future for this planet, and if any of the available vague depictions of all the places to go to from our current distress would indeed become our future at any point, we could not really recognize them if we should find ourselves in middle of them, because most, if not all, of all those places are presented so vaguely. It might also be said that because all of those places to go to from here are so poorly defined, that should one them become our future, this future would, by its own existence, become defined sharply automatically and show enough many imperfections again to want to get away from--the conundrum would repeat itself till the planet would become uninhabitable, if for humans only.

If there do exist any clearly defined desired future visions/models, their desirability is shared by only a limited number of people, and thus rendered impossible to realize.

The approach to our getting out of our predicament has to change radically:
Before we start moving from our difficulties towards a place that we might consider as able to offer a satisfactory existence for us, why not to check thoroughly--into as small a detail as possible--that the situation we want to exist in is really something that we do want? Of course, this alone would not ever do--how do we convince all others that they will like the situation also? Because, if we don't, their dislike of our vision/model will prevent us from ever getting there.

I believe that the approach to be adopted is this:
In most instances the desire for change is driven by our trying to escape our unsatisfactory circumstances; we don't really give enough thought to where we would like to escape to, as long as the grass on the other side of the fence looks greener to us. Because all of us would like to have a happy future existence on this planet, only a collectively, carefully designed future should be striven for. It has to be designed by all of us who have a stake in the future. If this sounds difficult, let us realize that without all of us designing our future together, we would have to continue to reconcile all of our differences in real life, causing real damage to ourselves and others we share the Earth with, as the practice has been so far, with obvious results.

The change to an ideal Earth then would not then be driven by our desire to escape, but by the will to achieve a well defined future that has been designed carefully by all who want to share such a future.
There would be no need for any form of "social control" to enforce anything at all when we all would be able to control our own lives by being able to take a part in the process of designing our own future!
We always have to resolve our differences (whether we want to, or not), but--we would be doing it "in modelo" without incurring any real damages; Compare this to current practice of resolving our differences in real life, incurring real damages, more often than not. We would gladly then work towards what we want--no one would have to force us!

Any of the "models" of SSE (or, for the matter, any of the many "escape based" models) that I glanced at are (in my opinion) too abstruse to be understood by most people--what is needed is graphical models (a la SL, etc.?) from which it would be possible to see, to a small detail, what everyday life would be like, where the movement of resources would be clearly seen, etc.
Such models of supposedly sustainable "solutions" for the future would be very useful in "seeing" how purportedly sustainable communities would behave in relation to all other life on the planet, and in relation to other such communities. I discuss this in "Universal Platform for Developing Sustainable Earth Vision/Model Cooperatively".

Bibliography and suggested reading.

This book explains the fundamental difference between a change towards a desired goal based on an escape from undesirable conditions (most current approaches including SSE) and a change based on "creating" (Fritz 1984) an entirely new, unprecedented "result" (Fritz 1984), i. g. - ModelEarth ( ):
Fritz, Robert
1984 The Path of Least Resistance
Salem, MA, DMA, Inc., 1984, ISBN: 0-930641-00-0

There is, perhaps a useful observation about "steady state economy" in:
2011 Tverberg, Gail
"There is No Steady State Economy (except at a very basic level)" - accessed 08/11/2012

"Steady State Economy" in Japan during the "Edo" (Tokugawa) period:
Ugo Bardi
"The Cuckoo that won't sing. Sustainability and Japanese culture" - accessed 08/12/2012

My posts on the subject of sustainability of "steady state ecomnomy" at the Google group "SteadyStaters" - How sustainable would "steady state economy" actually be?!topic/steadystaters/_pTNqah3Xfc[1-25] accessed 08/12/2012

Sustianable "Steady State Economy" - continued. -!topic/steadystaters/BkfK6BgRK1M[1-25] accessed 08/12/2012

The Need for a Model of a "Steady State Economy" Society.!topic/steadystaters/KeLwzuztHGc[1-25] accessed 08/12/2012

Back to TOP

© Hearthstone - Creative Commons License

Things for an "indie" website maintainer.

"W3C" HTML 4.01 compliant