Tragedy of Common Sense

Speak for the trees

So I went to see The Lorax yesterday, and it inspired me to contribute a post on the topic of sustainable growth. Tragedy of Common Sense is mostly Dodo's domain and I won't pretend to be quite as clued up on environmental economics, but as a development economist, the issue of growth is important to me.

I love Dr. Seuss, and The Lorax has to be one of my favourites. It's difficult to watch the movie, or read the book, and not start wondering about the point of this whole growth religion we're all so devoted to. This past weekend we celebrated Earth Day, and I had the privilege at that time of gazing through a telescope and getting a very clear understanding of just how isolated we are here on Spaceship Earth, as Dodo's previous post talks about. If anything, this has steeled my resolve that EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE. Growth and development practitioners in particular need to start thinking differently about what we mean with development. It's a topic that has been trudged through time and time again, sure. You can open any Development textbook and find a chapter devoted to "The distinction between growth and development." But it always concludes as follows: "Growth is a necessary precondition for development". We need to throw these textbooks away and really redefine the way we look at these issues, because we're killing ourselves and our planet in the process - all in the name of progress.

A musical number in the film stands out, where the Once-ler is singing about how bad he could possibly be. Sure, he's cutting down some trees and killing habitat in the process, but "I'm just doing what's natural", he argues. People are entrepreneurs, after all. It's natural for us to want to grow. What a crock of shit. The problem is that we have become so disconnected from nature, we don't even know what's natural anymore. Think about it. Do you know of ANYTHING here on Mother Earth that just keeps on growing indefinitely? How tall would I be now, for instance, if I had just continued growing after puberty, instead of leveling out at 5ft something, like all other humans do? Hamsters, though they double their weight each week from birth to puberty, do stop growing once they're mature. And thank goodness for that, since if they didn't, hamsters would weigh about 9 billion tons by the time they reach one year. (Seriously, check out the NEF's animation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo) Nothing in nature grows indefinitely. Our economies shouldn't either.

But it's just business right? As the Once-ler says after the forest animals start complaining that they've nothing left to eat: "Business is business, and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know.''

I don't propose to have the ultimate solution, but I'm hoping I can convince you to at least start thinking differently about these things. So bear with me in the coming weeks as I investigate the relationship between growth and development in economics.

If you are an econ student reading this, do me a favour and start insisting on alternative textbooks and courses at your school. Talk about this with your fellow students and lecturers. Research it, present papers about it at conferences. Contribute to a new way of thinking, because "unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."