Localism and some thoughts on Social Change
Posted by Luis de Sousa on June 5, 2007 - 3:00am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: Corporations, Localism, Retirement, social change, sociology, sustainability [list all tags]
| A few days ago I attended a talk by Professor David Hess, entitled “Rethinking the Sustainable City: Exploring the Potential of Local Social Enterprises”. It gave me a lot to thought about on the social questions raised by the Hubbert Peak, and how energy (or the lack of it) can shape the future of our Society. Less energy will likely mean less travel and more local networks. Reshaping our Society to the local level might seem both good and inevitable, but what problems may we encounter doing so? |
|
Contrary to previous posts I’m adopting a more informal direct speech this time. This post is just a collection of thoughts on some social aspects of the Hubbert Peak’s consequences, without the technical goals of previous writings. I just intend to lead you to think about it and discuss it.
The talk by prof. Hess was organized by a group of Sociology PhD students, from a kin Faculty, integrated in a series of thematic sessions; this one was called “Other Habitats”. The session call had the following abstract:
These subjects, that I’ll give you a bit insight, are covered in prof. Hess’ latest book, “Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry”, from which the first chapter is available online (here – pdf).
This was the first time prof. Hess visited Lisbon and he took his time touring. He was pretty impressed with the city, and said that comparing with the US this was Utopia. The words Lisbon and Utopia had never come to mind together, but prof. Hess explained how different it was from the American urban landscape built to the “scale of the automobile”.
Lawless parking.
I usually think of over-traffic and lawless parking associated with Lisbon (half of the cars entering the city every day don’t have a park place) and never really looked at it from the bright side. Like prof. Hess pointed, most of the commerce in the city is still controlled locally; in fact restaurants, snack-bars, bookstores, drugstores, tool-shops, etc, are all run by small family business. They exist because the center of the city cannot take in the big malls and warehouses, and believe me, local stores are convenient and people use them. Obviously they depend on immense supply lines and deal mostly goods from abroad, but this was a good starter for what prof. Hess had latter to say.
A brighter side of Lisbon.
The base case produced by World3 in the late 1980s.
Eventually Mankind will have to shift the interaction with its Environment/Habitat to a Sustainable fashion. And prof. Hess explicitly indicated that he was using Herman Daly’s definition of Sustainability:
But this time the Limits are being faced globally, responses 1 and 2 will eventually become ineffective, these options can promise much but they just adjourn the problem - after all the Earth is round. We may bring War to Mars and Trade to Venus, but that won’t change much the picture either.
So we have the other two options (3 and 4) left. Here prof. Hess traced a line between those that favour Innovation and those that prefer Social Change, the belief that “Technology will save us” or that it won’t. He pointed that Innovation is mostly preferred among Europeans whereas Social Change has been studied more deeply in the US. Naturally prof. Hess is an adept of Social adaptation bringing us to the concept of Localism.
Before we move on let me just tell you that there are in fact people studying Localism (or some resemblance of it) in Europe. Especially two gentleman that I had the fortune to met at ASPO-5, Robert Hopkins and Folke Gunther, have some serious work in this vein. If you don’t know their work, check it out, it’s worth it.
But there's another issue not addressed by Innovation, the system that supports elderly people after retirement. Here prof. Hess focused on the US case where Pension Funds are either directly managed by Corporations or dependent on corporate results (through investment on stock markets). The individual becomes dependent on Corporations, and it's their growth that guarantees future pensions. Once growth constraints set in this system is bound to failure.
And so prof. Hess proposes a social rearrangement towards small communities where individuals create stronger bounds inside it and lessen dependence on larger organizations – something called Localism. Economic activity gets spatially constrained; goods and services are produced locally, mostly by small sized or family businesses, and consumed locally. Politically the governing responsibilities are concentrated locally and a local culture naturally emerges. Agriculture becomes the socio-economic center around which society gravitates, with communities becoming largely self-sufficient.

Local market.
These are the pillars of Localism, as laid down by prof. Hess:
Local transport.
Localism’s advantages on an energy constrained world are quite evident: the long supply lines that feed and clothe us and that provide the fabric of our homes become expendable; and with it the gross of our energy needs. With the economy evolving at a local level transportation of people and goods becomes marginal.
In the case of the US, with a population density of 32 people per square km, Localism looks like a realistic option, but what about elsewhere? The EU has almost 4 times the population density of the US, around 112 people per square km. Think of the triangle made by Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, or the London metropolitan area, can all these people go local? And what about Localism in Japan?
But I have other question marks. Is in fact Sustainability self-evident on a local scale? On the source side of the interaction with the environment this is pretty much the case, but is it so on the sink side of it? What stops me from sending my waste downstream? It’ll disappear from my local environment, why bother further?
This last question takes me to a broader point: when going local it is easy to miss “the big picture”, you can see that your tree is healthy but at the same time miss that the forest is ill. Think of a natural disaster, can local communities fare better in face of such events? And Education, can local schools teach advanced skills to form doctors, architects, engineers, etc?
Don’t take me as adverse to Localism, in fact I can concept life on small local communities as better than how we live on the stressing hurrying metropolises. I just think that if our answer to the Hubbert Peak goes through Localism, once more the Lone Ranger will have to pack his belt.
Luís de Sousa
The Oil Drum : Europe
The talk by prof. Hess was organized by a group of Sociology PhD students, from a kin Faculty, integrated in a series of thematic sessions; this one was called “Other Habitats”. The session call had the following abstract:
The problems of global warming, resource depletion, persistent pollution, and habitat destruction suggest that human civilization is no longer adapted to its global habitat. The technology for achieving a transformation to a more sustainable relationship with the environment already exists in the form of green buildings, renewable energy, public transportation, and sustainable agriculture. However, the implementation of the transformation is proceeding at a very slow pace, and it occurs alongside ongoing growth of environmental deposits and withdrawals. This talk examines the argument that an economic system based on the large, publicly traded corporation with its emphasis on short-term growth creates a growth logic that is not adapted to the global ecology. The emergence of the localist movement in the United States--around small businesses, nonprofits, and local government agencies--is examined for its potential to generate a more liveable human habitat and an economy that is more adapted to life within the planet's carrying capacity.“Resource depletion” is a term hard to resist, especially when associated with someone with the curriculum of prof. Hess.
These subjects, that I’ll give you a bit insight, are covered in prof. Hess’ latest book, “Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry”, from which the first chapter is available online (here – pdf).
First impressions
Prof. Hess started by surprising everyone who didn’t knew him with a clean brasilian flavoured portuguese – he lived in Rio de Janeiro for some time – and used it throughout half of the presentation. The second half he hadn’t the time to translate.This was the first time prof. Hess visited Lisbon and he took his time touring. He was pretty impressed with the city, and said that comparing with the US this was Utopia. The words Lisbon and Utopia had never come to mind together, but prof. Hess explained how different it was from the American urban landscape built to the “scale of the automobile”.
Lawless parking.
I usually think of over-traffic and lawless parking associated with Lisbon (half of the cars entering the city every day don’t have a park place) and never really looked at it from the bright side. Like prof. Hess pointed, most of the commerce in the city is still controlled locally; in fact restaurants, snack-bars, bookstores, drugstores, tool-shops, etc, are all run by small family business. They exist because the center of the city cannot take in the big malls and warehouses, and believe me, local stores are convenient and people use them. Obviously they depend on immense supply lines and deal mostly goods from abroad, but this was a good starter for what prof. Hess had latter to say.
A brighter side of Lisbon.
The Limits and how Society faces them
The basic idea behind the talk was the concept of Overshoot – Mankind has exceeded the carrying capacity of its habitat and will have to face some sort of adjustment to go back into balance with it. Citing previous work by prof. Charles Hall, we were showed how the projections made in the early 1970’s by the Meadows work-group at the MIT have been essentially correct up to now. Mankind will face the Limits to Growth before mid-century.
The base case produced by World3 in the late 1980s.
Eventually Mankind will have to shift the interaction with its Environment/Habitat to a Sustainable fashion. And prof. Hess explicitly indicated that he was using Herman Daly’s definition of Sustainability:
Society can face Limits to Growth essentially with four different responses:
- Rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed regeneration rates;
- Rates of use of nonrenewable resources do not exceed rates of development of renewable substitutes;
- Rates of pollution emission do not exceed assimilative capacities of the environment.
-
Turning to the Outside:
- War – acquiring resources abroad;
- Trade – exchanging internal surpluses by needed items from abroad;
- Innovation – creating new processes and techniques that allow further exploitation of the habitat;
- Social Change – rearrange Society in order to diminish its resource requirements;
Turning to the Inside:
But this time the Limits are being faced globally, responses 1 and 2 will eventually become ineffective, these options can promise much but they just adjourn the problem - after all the Earth is round. We may bring War to Mars and Trade to Venus, but that won’t change much the picture either.
So we have the other two options (3 and 4) left. Here prof. Hess traced a line between those that favour Innovation and those that prefer Social Change, the belief that “Technology will save us” or that it won’t. He pointed that Innovation is mostly preferred among Europeans whereas Social Change has been studied more deeply in the US. Naturally prof. Hess is an adept of Social adaptation bringing us to the concept of Localism.
Before we move on let me just tell you that there are in fact people studying Localism (or some resemblance of it) in Europe. Especially two gentleman that I had the fortune to met at ASPO-5, Robert Hopkins and Folke Gunther, have some serious work in this vein. If you don’t know their work, check it out, it’s worth it.
Localism
The thesis put forward by prof. Hess is that Social Change is basically the only effective answer to the growth constraints we are facing. He doesn't see Innovation as a better option, for it may not deliver on its promises, but above all because it implies sacrifices from the individual – wind energy, hybrid vehicles, they all represent extra burdens for those who opt for them.But there's another issue not addressed by Innovation, the system that supports elderly people after retirement. Here prof. Hess focused on the US case where Pension Funds are either directly managed by Corporations or dependent on corporate results (through investment on stock markets). The individual becomes dependent on Corporations, and it's their growth that guarantees future pensions. Once growth constraints set in this system is bound to failure.
And so prof. Hess proposes a social rearrangement towards small communities where individuals create stronger bounds inside it and lessen dependence on larger organizations – something called Localism. Economic activity gets spatially constrained; goods and services are produced locally, mostly by small sized or family businesses, and consumed locally. Politically the governing responsibilities are concentrated locally and a local culture naturally emerges. Agriculture becomes the socio-economic center around which society gravitates, with communities becoming largely self-sufficient.

Local market.
These are the pillars of Localism, as laid down by prof. Hess:
- Finish Corporations, freeing individuals from corporate economic growth, making them reliant on the local community;
- Promote Local Businesses, creating economies independent of Corporations;
- Sustainability, provided by a local scale economy that makes sustainability issues self-evident;
- More Local Power, an improvement to Democracy.
Local transport.
Some thoughts and questions
First of all let me stress how refreshing it was to hear and see people from different scientific areas discussing the subjects surrounding the Hubbert Peak. Instead of the traditional technical/engineering talk, the social/political perspective can help you getting a boarder view of our future. It was really interesting to hear an attendant using the terms Myth of Growth during the Q&A.Localism’s advantages on an energy constrained world are quite evident: the long supply lines that feed and clothe us and that provide the fabric of our homes become expendable; and with it the gross of our energy needs. With the economy evolving at a local level transportation of people and goods becomes marginal.
In the case of the US, with a population density of 32 people per square km, Localism looks like a realistic option, but what about elsewhere? The EU has almost 4 times the population density of the US, around 112 people per square km. Think of the triangle made by Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, or the London metropolitan area, can all these people go local? And what about Localism in Japan?
But I have other question marks. Is in fact Sustainability self-evident on a local scale? On the source side of the interaction with the environment this is pretty much the case, but is it so on the sink side of it? What stops me from sending my waste downstream? It’ll disappear from my local environment, why bother further?
This last question takes me to a broader point: when going local it is easy to miss “the big picture”, you can see that your tree is healthy but at the same time miss that the forest is ill. Think of a natural disaster, can local communities fare better in face of such events? And Education, can local schools teach advanced skills to form doctors, architects, engineers, etc?
Don’t take me as adverse to Localism, in fact I can concept life on small local communities as better than how we live on the stressing hurrying metropolises. I just think that if our answer to the Hubbert Peak goes through Localism, once more the Lone Ranger will have to pack his belt.
Luís de Sousa
The Oil Drum : Europe



Ya' gotta' love the way Professor David Hess defines innovation:
"Innovation – creating new processes and techniques that allow further exploitation of the habitat;"
Gee, and one would hope that innovation could help
(a) Get a greater amount of benefit out of each BTU consumed
(b) create structures of recycling and streamlining of consumption so as make production more efficient, and reduce demand on natural resources (i.e., products built with life cycle use in mind, and methane recapture from waste in which the methane would be used instead of being vapored off as a damaging greenhouse gas)
(c) create alternative ways to take advantage of heat and energy that is all around us but which does not reduce the amount of said heat and energy by using it (i.e., geothermal and heat from solar energy)
But no, sadly, innovation means only "exploitation".
Imagine education of our young based on the premise that innovation is exploitation....should it then be avoided?
The so called "green" and "sustainable" intellectuals though, cannot figure out why the average educated citizen shakes their head sadly and turns away.
This discussion is now being framed by the deep green and anarcho-neo primitivist philosophy. That's o.k., but it should at least be admitted by way of disclaimer if nothing else.
RC
I have two "solutions" that have nothing to do with localism:
1) Implementing a draconian world government which begins reclaiming all resources back into the commons, greatly restricting use and taking them out of ("off") the market - restricting the power of individuals and of corporations.
This would, btw, probably require WAR (solution nr. 1) to implement.
2) Growth and building "more": much compacter cities (like Hong Kong) which are built vertically (saves land resources) or are even suspended above ground. Solar and wind are collected better at higher altitudes anyway, creates shade to help grow plants /develop wildlife in presently desertified areas..
Draconian world governments? Resources reclaimed into the commons? Restricting power of individuals AND corporations?
You seem to have an affinity for that which lumps individuals and corporations together when it is the "fictional entity" known as the corporation that ALREADY "eats" its fill of individuals daily.
Are you by chance some perverse mutation of the "constant gardener"?
How about instead simply removing the legal concept of the corporation as "fictional person" (revoking corporate personhood) for starters?
That would go an awfully long way toward restoring corporations to their logical status as OBJECTS with NO RIGHTS other than what is permitted them by the people, or barring such a doubtful miracle, requiring that for every "human rights and freedoms" demanded by corporations, an equal share of responsibility is shouldered, from each according to "their" ability, thus rendering the "fictional persons" known as corporations more...."human" and thus more "local".
After all, as you well know, it's in vogue these days to remind everyone that "freedom isn't free".
Localization is simply a natural part of the ELP triumvirate
Economize
Localize
Produce
War torn humans smashed into compact cities with little or no resources will have no will or inclination to produce. Rather, they will be inclined to SUCKLE at the teat of the "mother state", they will be turn on each other and civility will be reduced to that of an animal level.
Why be civil when one's life has no value, when the individuals are, to quote Howard Beale, "utterly without value and as replaceable as piston rods"?
Hong Kong functions as a compact city because of its enormous wealth and production OF resources.
I think I'd like to pass on your Bladerunner-style dystopian bergscape.
:-)
Well, I can't reply to everything at the moment, so I'll take a chunk a time.
I never watched Bladerunner :-( , so I don't know which images are passing through your head.
"Are you by chance some perverse mutation of the "constant gardener"?"
Again, I'm not sure of your reference, found le Carre's book/movie with the same name, but is there something else behind it? (I'm beginning to feel pretty illiterate, or at least media-illiterate)
My point is, if you want to change the way we use (i.e. "exploit":-) our resources, you also need to change the way things work.
"Localizing" is a nice title, but it does not change the biggest problem:
MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS PLAYING BY THE "NEW" RULES TOO.
If "growth" is going to be reversed or channelled, then we have to make major, major changes on the free-market system, on the present world socio-economic-political system.
How do you do this? By taking away everyone's rights.
- Individuals need to be revoked of the right to consume at will (my example was the right of building anywhere, which is especially a US problem)
- Corporations need to loose the right to expand/operate at will in unregulated regions (moving offshore AND exploiting resources of 3rd World..)
- Nation/States have to be revoked the right to pass or not pass laws at will. Who's going to force the US to ratify Kyoto? Who's going ot enforce world wide laws??
The free market has its advantages. It however MUST be heavily, heavily regulated - which, on the global level, it is not at all presently...
--
My grandfather pumped oil with an engine-house,
my father pumped oil with a 20 lb. electric motor,
can't I just pump it online?
Or as Luis put it:
"Is in fact Sustainability self-evident on a local scale?
...
What stops me from sending my waste downstream? It’ll disappear from my local environment, why bother further?"
The movie "Bladerunner" is probably Harrison Ford's best early work. It was based on the SciFi Novella "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", written by Phillip Dick and also wonderful.
The concept of economic sanctions could be used against the US. The Bush administration is the most dangerous government in the world and the European Union and other civilized nations should have banned imports from the US long ago. That they haven't means the Europeans actually approve of the US's use of military power in poor Asian countries and its flaunting of Kyoto and other international laws such as kidnapping "terrorists" from their homelands and imprisoning them at Gitmo and other secret prisons.
Might help, but I'm not that fit in law to tell you what the consequences would be.
I think calling a corp. a person only means that you can deal with it as a separate legal entity..
Meaning, that it's the same thing as calling the corp. an "object", as you propose. Any lawyers here?
There's a book (and DVD!) called The Corporation, that explains the advantages that being a person in a legal sense entails for a corporation.
IT means the first paragraph of the 14th amendment applies.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
IOW, a state cannot close down a corporation's operation, nor deny it permission to open up, nor can it seize property in compensation for damage suffered, nor can it decide to regulate a particular corporation to protect its own local suppliers, etc, etc.
And the question of Luis' post ist, does this make sense?
He puts it in question. On a personal level, it is certainly the thing to do: "simplify" !!
On a political level, I think this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
If you plan on avoiding dieoff on the level of the human race (which I don't think is anywhere near inevitable), there are going to be a lot of non-voluntary changes in everybody's lifestyle. And like I've been saying, these changes will have to be enforced, probably from above..
How would you propose taking away "rights" from individuals, corporations and up til now sovereign states? I'm afraid the UN is not a very good response.
You might be imagining the worst case. I'm just assuming that these three groups will all demand their own advantage during the reorganisation..
..if that's the way you see ending suburbia. If you want to "save" the earth in any acceptable way, it will have a lot to do with sacrificing living space on the ground.
as if we had a great choice.. Resources WILL be strained.
And then you continue my example of Hong Kong. Funny that the Chinese there didn't roll over and suck on socialist teats.
Yes, Hong Kong is a good example of what will probably be a viable organisational solution, if not Cuba..
Yes but the "Hong Kongians" (is that right?) haven't had all their rights taken away by said "draconian world government"...not yet anyway. You're definitely leaning toward Cuba with the DWG model for sure...not that we can't learn an awful lot from the Cuba model to be sure.
Depending on how things go in the next couple of years we may very well see large parts of this country wind up looking very "Cuban".
Roger, "exploitation" was my choice of words.
It has no intended negative semantics; think of it like using fertilizers to increase crop yields per hectare, or putting a thermal solar panel on your roof.
Luís,
Please accept my apology for the misatribution, and if I engaged in rhetorical overreach, I again apologize.
I have been on something of the defensive, attempting to provide any technology with the justification to exist, so yes, a thermal solar panel would be welcome, and I will attest to the miracle of composting in the garden, so that is more than enough for me. :-)
I think I am going to save the very nice article and string of posts on concentrating solar power from TOD the other day, and just go off and study for awhile!
Thank you for your post, it made me think of a simpler time, of the "Village Homes" Development of Micheal and Judy Corbett from back in the '70's, and the "New Urbanism" ideas. As us boomers get older, we are going to learn to live in communes again.....only now they will be called "Senior Towers" "Retirement Communities.", so our lifestyle is already set anyway....:-)
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I'm not trying to push either way; Innovation or Social Change, both have its goods and bads. The all point is about "Silver Bullets", and how complex are the problems the Hubbert Peak raises.
Great RC, You have just made ten points in The Great Flummox Google with Innovative Jargon, game.
Your search - anarcho-neo primitivist - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.
Think of the innovation of using wind power to create electric power to use for personal warmth compared to grabbing a sheep chopping off it's hair (yes I know professionals use the term wool but I want to be all inclusive with my jargon) anyway, chopping off it's hair and knitting a sweater to keep warm...of course if you would prefer new innovation even here, possibly a new glue to apply that hair with would be more to your tastes? ;>)
(edit)
I shouldn't get carried away like that but when I read something that avoids the problem and then you, Thats it, feed into that avoidance how can I be serious.
we get this:
and then nothing but wallpaper.
"Your search - anarcho-neo primitivist - did not match any documents"
Well, re-enter it now, because it does...my reference on TOD!
Holy Cow, I've created a catch phrase! :-)
Well, actually I didn't, I just mis-combined a well known set of philosophies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Anarchist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Tribalism
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I think the point was to highlight the differences between the strategies; without social change, the application of technology will indeed focus on further exploitation of resources, not diminishing their use (that is explicitly included under social change).
I think thats slightly unfair. efficiency gains are increased exploitation in a sense.. It would be odd to if hess is against efficiency gains
process that further exploitation can be seen as efficiency.
semantics aside I think we can stretch boundaries... In essence you are attcking the meaning of a single items wording here...
how about the general analysis or thrust of his argument...do you find that equally unsound?
Boris
London
One of the issues is that Localism is in conflict with economic growth, at least the way we do it now.
It doesn't help to make a few bicycle paths in a town and put up some posters about 'going green'. At one point, you have to say: we will invest the majority of our money in bicycle paths and we will close down the city centre for cars.
At that point, the conflict becomes pretty clear. That's also the point where most people won't put words into deeds and back off.
Localism was put forward by prof Hess as a Social answer to the end of growth (at as we concept it today). There's no conflict.
Well, maybe there is still a small conflict ... ;-)
You can't just say: Let's stop growing. That would basically mean the end of society as we know it. (Sounds a bit dramatic, I admit)
Our society is build around the assumption that we grow it x% per year. That's going to be difficult in a world with finite resources, but 'pulling the plug' now means basically refusing people a fighting chance.
Richard you’re misinterpreting what’s going on here. No one wants to “pull the plug”; we’re just wandering “what are we going to do when the plug is pulled?”
I think you're getting caught up in a chicken/egg discussion.
"what are we going to do when the plug is pulled?"
We are going to pit our interests against each other, like Richard is trying to point out. The "dog eat dog" world is about ready to become just that...
Luis,
Prof Hess lists 4 points, two of them are:
This is a problem.
Corporations are enormous wealth creators. If we just abandom them, we go to a village economy that India has been untill about 1990. That means poverty, you know. You don't really think we can all live reasonably happy by making wooden furniture in the shed and trading it for bread with our nextdoor neighbour?
I don't want to be too negative, but what if we just try to keep the best of our economy up and running and fix the part that is broken? Prof Hess seems to think all is lost and best is if we just give up.
I think we easily can reduce our energy & resource consumption by 30% without any significant change in lifestile and another 30% with only small sacrifices. How about we do that first?
This is simply not true. Up until the 1970s stagflationary period there were almost no Corporations in Europe, and individuals did not depend on them for Retirement (as is pretty much the case today). Monopolistic businesses like water/electricity supply, phone networks, etc, were state owned, and please remember that there were still some fascist states in Europe at that time. Then the neo-liberal politics set in and the picture changed.
Also think of the Soviet Union of the late 1970s, obviously they were profiting from being the world’s largest oil producer, but they didn’t need Corporations to be wealthy.
The Soviet Union of the late 1970s? I'll take corporations over gulags any day.
?
Could you define what you mean there? (I think you have something else on your mind.)
Let me start with the German ones, who til the 1970s were very very successful on an international level:
VW, Mercedes-Benz, MAN, Allianz, Siemens, AEG, Grundig, etc.., etc..
Luís,
What I remember from history class is that after WW II, the economy changed, from a village type economy to a much more international / global economy with much deeper markets. Both manufacturing, service and financially.
This change already started in the US and Europe before WW II and this process really caught speed after the war. Remember 'whats good for GM is good for America'? This process is no different in Europe as in the US. There are many examples of large international companies who really grew after the war. Philips, Royal Dutch Shell, Fiat, etc, etc.
If I look at who is really creating wealth today, I see that a lot of it is done in large corporations. Not in the small shops that sell clothing, or where you buy coffee and something to eat. It's the large manufacturing and service providers that create wealth and thousands and thousands of good paying jobs. Did you ever see a shop assistant making 100.000 euro a year? How about a senior engineer at * insert technical company * ?
If we abandon all this, we drastically reduce our productivity. And thus we drastically reduce our wealth. And I'm afraid: yes, that means poverty, like in rural India today. There is no reasonable scenario where we can come even close to maintaining a reasonable living standard, let alone paying pensions to the retired, without maintaining our massive productivity.
Small remark about the Soviet Union: It also had large corporations. Only they were owned by the state (or by the maffia actually) The only difference between the SU and the free world is how close incentives were linked to people. Apart from the massive political oppression, that is.
Hi Richard,
Somewhat late in the day to comment - but it's such an important topic.
re: "If I look at who is really creating wealth today, I see that a lot of it is done in large corporations."
Could you possibly go into a little more detail on this?
What is it about corporations that makes them "create wealth"?
What is it about the corporate structure that you see as necessary?
If we have large manufacturing plants, for example, does this necessitate corporations?
Or...?
Is there any alternate organizational structure that might work as well?
Is there any alternative structure that would allow for restrictions, such as local anti-pollution laws, or other things people see as "good".
Anyway, I'd like to hear more if/when possible.
"Growth" won't be a binary on-off sort of thing (like a light switch). Thinking of it as "growth simply ends" or "pulling the plug" destroys all the mental elbow room for realizing how we can and will adapt.
Instead try thinking of the end of economic growth (as we know it today) in stages. Like a car accelerating up an incline that loses power...
Today we are using our power to accelerate up an incline ("accelerating upward" being = to economic growth). The vehicle would not normally go up an incline on it's own, much less accelerate, but the use of power lets it do these things. That is our growth today - of population, resource use, economic growth, and virtually all the things that do not fit the category of 'sustainable'.
Next the vehicle loses power - for whatever reason. First, it stops accelerating. Not that it stops going uphill - momentum keeps it moving upward - but it ceases to accelerate and begins to slow. In economics this would be called a "recession", a period of slower than desired growth.
Next, the momentum slips to zero and the vehicle momentarily stops on the hillside. This is a balance point between recession and depression.
Then gravity takes over and the vehicle begins to roll back down the incline - this is negative economic growth, economic contraction, depression.
At the bottom of the incline the car coasts to stop and becomes stationary - the mysterious "Steady-State Economy". A condition that is often feared simply because it is the great unknown.
Recessions shake the status quo. It is a rough time for people. Businesses that rely on growth fail, as do those that are over-extended, or rely on discretionary or frivolous spending. They are tough times, but not the end of the world. The do alter the status quo to favor "recession-proof" business models. This is the first stage of adapting, of changing.
Depressions are much worse. They wreak havoc on the status quo, and on the lives of many many people. They lay waste to so much of the economic landscape that a new status quo is virtually guaranteed - one that reflects the conditions at the end of depression.
Which brings us back around to that vehicle sitting still on the flat ground below the incline, the Steady-State Economy. If the changes in energy availability play out in the future like the tail of Hubbert's Curve, then the conditions will be so different from today that there is no chance that the status quo of today, the economic growth paradigm of today, or the ever accelerating trends in energy, population, globalization, etc of today will shape the creation of this new economy.
I don't know what it will look like, or how it will work, or barely even what to do to prepare for it. But that does not mean that a steady-state will not be created. Just because we can not imagine something does not mean it will never exist...
Well, it wont ever exist in a timeframe worth discussing. At 3% energy consumption growth per year we're still some centuries from coming close to using up the solar budget.
At one point, you have to say: we will invest the majority of our money in bicycle paths and we will close down the city centre for cars.
If you ban cars there is no more need for bicycle lanes. (Actually, there is no need for bicycle lanes at all. They were invented by car-centric urban planners and serve for getting the bikes out of the cars way.)
Actually, I think that even if you get rid of the cars, you need separation between pedestrians and bicyles in certain areas. I ride a heavily used bicycle lane in Boulder which has lots of pedestrians and it is dangerous for both the pedestrians and the bikes. This doesn't mean all bike lanes need separation; it depends upon the density of different modes.
Yeh, perhaps separate bike lanes were invented by car centric planners, but they are certainly a lot more pleasant, in general, than having to worry about cars.
In the pedestrian mall in Boulder, bikes are banned for good reason --- there are way too many pedestrians.
Yes, pedestrians should be protected from both bicycle and car traffic.
One major street north-south and one west-east reserved for bicycle traffic in a city would be a great start.