Limits to growth?

As I recall, the Club of Rome's study predicted an end only to Cheap Oil, and it has proved to be correct. At that time deep-sea drilling was just coming into its own, and they predicted (warned?) that the expense involved in this type of recovery would become so great that it would demand the "partnership" of deep-pocket governments. They predicted the same for other mineralisations too, and were wrong only in the time-scale.

There are no forseeable limits to the availability of fossil fuels, nor to the demand for them, and so we will gladly bear the increasing costs of utilising them. Since the production of CO2 is unavoidable in such use, it is easy to see that the current CO2 = GW scam is in reality only a camoflaged drive for Limits to Growth.

And so I have no real argument with such as Bush and Co, who claim there are no "limits". As usual, technology will prevail, and as usual, we will be unable to resist its' siren call.

I once had a conversation with an evolutionary biologist who eplained it to me thus :

Humans will eventually expand to such numbers that eventually we will have so debased our food production systems on land and sea, wild and domestic, to a point where by far the bulk of our expenses will be in the production of food.

Animal protein will be reserved for the rich, since food must be diverted to these animals for their production. Mass-produced food for us commoners might be GMO algae, tailored for flavour.

But will those humans be less happy than us? I doubt it. Are the kids who haven't seen the magnificent groves of huge trees (now clearcuts) that I saw in my youth, less happy?

What we wind up talking about is quality of life, and something even more difficult to explain, respect for the environment and those other creatures that share it with us.

Those issues are set forth in Naess' Deep Ecology platform :

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/DE-Platform.html

Another way of explaining quality of life might be that just as I would warn a girl away from marrying a man who kicks his dog, so too should we be wary of a culture like ours that kicks the environment around....

The Great Turning: Growth vs. Genuine Progress

I applaud Margaret Atwood and the Tyee for this article. When all the news is about the 'economic crisis'- the under-reported news is about the reality that the world's global output has grown some 18 fold between 1990 and 2000...and a 'pause', indeed an ending to some economic disasters -such as the Big 3 automakers, the credit mill of Investment Houses & some Banks is long overdue. To all but the most unmindful it is readily apparent that the world's dominant economic system is placing great stress on the carrying capacity of Mother earth. This is a time of unparalled species extinction due to habitat loss, erosion and climate change. This is also a time of tremendous social injustice while huge corporations reap billions in profits.I recommend that folks read the World 2008 report by the Worldwatch Institute. I recommend also the Tyee give greater coverage to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a UN study by more than 1,300 scientists world wide of the global ecosystem. It documents the fact of non-linear, accelerating global ecological changes and the degradation of 60% of a group of 24 global ecosystem services are caused primarily by the planet's hegeminic economic system - global capitalism. The 'economic crisis' ..is but an opportunity to turn away from 'growth mania' and rampant consumerism and turn towards new green economy policies and new economic accounting indicators that are less focused on measuring growth, but more tuned to measure genuine progress or genuine wealth - and the state of the five forms of Capital Accounts: Human capital, Social Capital, Natural Capital, Built capital, and Financial Capital. That the electorate of BC and Canada are so fragmented and tuned-away from politics that it cannot push the agenda of political parties with CAPACITY TO GOVERN much further along the 3-E sustainability agenda (Ecology/Environment; Economy/Employment; and Equity/Equality is highly lamentable. While the WE generation in the United States has woken up to its collective political power in the election of Obama - one wonders when they will become more active in BC/Canada. If the low turn-out at the civic level is any indication..the May 2009 provincial election, unless sparked by electric leadership ...will be a snoozer..despite vital, pressing issues being present to activiate and engage all citizenry, including the WE. We need far more 'blessed unrest' in this Province to get the Leadership from politicans and political parties that we need and deserve for these times.

Robert F. Kennedy on "Growth"

Robert F. Kennedy, 1968:
We will find neither national purpose nor personal satisfaction in a mere continuation of economic progress, in an endless amassing of worldly goods. We cannot measure national spirit by the Dow Jones Average, nor national achievement by the Gross National Product. For the Gross National Product includes air pollution, and ambulances to clear our highways from carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. The Gross National Product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles and nuclear warheads ... It includes ... the broadcasting of television programs which glorify violence to sell goods to our children. And if the Gross National Product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials ... the Gross National Product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile, and it can tell us everything about America -- except whether we are proud to be Americans.

New Scientist Report: How Our Economy is Killing the Earth

read for yourself

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-the-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html

Any bets

Any bets that the Canwest propaganda machine won't touch this rebuttal at all? They seem to only publish things that match their pre-determined corporate goals, and showing people why Gardner is an idiot really isn't on their radar.

Cranford Ladies? Couldn't we have different progressives?

It's too bad that growth now seems to have become a neo-con term. (One would hope progressives would see something in it they might like. Stasis--homeo or otherwise--just sounds so conservative.) So the story of evolutionary biology is that we start off with lots and lots of stuff, and end up with the same amount of lots and lots of stuff? We never did just have a couple fish, and end up with a bounty of them?

Atwood--being somewhat typically Canadian--finds growth, anxious (so do I, some), and so all this activity has her thinking of resting and quiet talks. Periods of manic economic growth (what we've been living through) make most people anxious. Industrial England made the Cranford ladies extremely uncomfortable--to the delight of Elizabeth Gaskell! The 1920s were another such period, and it's termination was ultimately greeted with a sense of relief (in the Great Depression, there were fewer suicides--no joke!). And so ended economic growth. And so ended artistic growth. And so ended societal growth.

I bought a lot. I also experienced a lot. It was what I had to do during this period to live. Now that the societal climate has changed, I won't buy as much, but I'll still find ways to grow.

PatrickMH

First They Ignore You

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

As citizens gain power in their rejection of the elitist policy of money and consumption, we will see increased attacks such as this one of Margaret Atwood. Gardner is playing directly from the script. Too bad he's so wrong.

Great coverage of a critical issue!

Time for a new muse

If the cabal that has run Canadian Lit for so many decades were located somewhere other than Ontario, perhaps Ms. Atwood would have received far less attention. (See BC Bookword, winter 2008, p.21 Fiction from Vladivostok).
It's time, also, to ignore all the drivel in Canwest papers. BTW, Australia is no longer shipping ore to China because China cannot pay. See http://silobreaker.com/DocumentCluster Reader news release Nov. 24 Cheers

Flaw in the Limits to Growth study

According to one of my university professors, a fact many conveniently fail to note is that the Limits to Growth was one of the first studies to use complex computer modeling. Despite the care and checking of the modelers, there was apparently a formula who exponent was incorrect (e.g. 3 instead of two). This reportedly resulted in gloomier predictions.

Many Neocons and others continue to point to these errant results 36 years later, while failing to acknowledge the flaw as it would undermine their already-specious argument.

Where are the MSM"s fact checkers?

Paul R. Ehrlich - The Population Bomb

I recently saw Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich talk at UBC. He became famous for the book “The Population Bomb” he wrote in 1968.

He talked about being asked by an economist why the earth would not support an infinite population. Ecology should be a required subject for all economists! Any natural ecosystem has inherent limits. Our ability to transport resources, energy, water and waste has allowed humans to bypass those natural limits... ...for the moment. Economics has been taught as a purely abstract subject, to our detriment.

Ehrlich also talked about building bridges with economists and recently co-authoring papers with economist Kenneth Arrow. Through the grapevine, they heard some approximation of this comment from a prominent economics journal: “We got that paper from Ken Arrow and his commie friends”.

We're now 6.3 billion and counting...

Consider that Paul Hawken said during a speech in Vancouver earlier this year, that he could envision a sustainable world of one billion people. There's a lot of suffering implied in the difference between those two numbers!!

How do we replace her

Lets look at it this way consider mother earth the product and as she continues to be mass produced to its people and she begins to show ware and tear as her value is much depreciated with global warming. How do we replace her once she is all worn out? Unfortunately our earth and her environment are no were on those balance sheets and the damage being done is irreversible as governments take a back seat and promote deregulation of industry harmful to the environment as politicians such as Bush and Campbell promote destruction of the earth in pursuit of profits.

Envy

Dan Gardner is just jealous that people actually pay to read what Atwood writes whereas his cheque comes from selling soap.

Yes, I'm that Dan Gardner

I've emailed the Tyee's editors and received no response so here goes....

This article grossly distorts what I wrote and what I believe. I will be writing a detailed response, either here -- if the editors will allow it -- or on my blog.

In the meantime, I have to say I find it astonishing to see comments from readers who are quite sure I'm some sort of savage neo-con Reaganite because they've read a brief, second-hand account of one sentence in one column! Frankly, some of those posting here sound about as thoughtful and open-minded as the rabid types who post on right-wing blogs.

For those who want to read just a little more about my writing before they condemn me as a conservative hack, have a look at www.dangardner.ca . And please, be sure to read the stuff about carbon taxes -- and then ask yourself if I'm really the savage neo-con Reaganite this ludicrous article makes me out to be.

Dan Gardner

Dan Gardner

Yes, Dan, I've read (no, not your blog which supposedly (according to you) proves that you're not a "savage neo-con Reaganite") both of your columns in The Vancouver Sun published on Nov. 3 and Nov. 25. You are in denial that there is currently a world deflationary economic crisis (jeez, even Harper acknowledges this) and that this might be the reason more financial regulations are needed, and also why commodity prices are crashing. And in your Nov. 3 column, you do call Atwood's writing "slack and lazy" at least five times if not more. You are an admitted admirer of The National Post (that, in itself, should be enough to prove that you're a neo-con, but I digress). Finite resources are a fact of life, something about which you are also in denial. I just suggest to readers that if they want to view the actual ideological bent of Dan Gardner, that they look up the aforementioned two columns and judge for themselves. (www.canada.com)

The titles of the articles for Googlers

PS: the titles of the articles are: The parallel freaking universe of celebrity intellectuals, Nov. 3, and Folks: we live in an age of abundance, Nov. 25, both in The Vancouver Sun.

What Purpose

Limits to Growth, Population Bomb, Origin of the Species, Silent Spring, David Suzuki, Barry Commoner, Dr. Vanda Shivji. Books and people who have put some thought into a future for the species. Add Ed Deak to this list. This abundance of the past 50 years, Dan, comes from theft of the future, stolen wealth and there is nothing you can do or say to disprove it. Nor stop it, unfortunatley. The next attempt at economic growth, if we have any thought of survival in mind will be transition to clean tech. Attempts will be made for more bubbles like high tech or real estate but they will fail as we are witnessing today. Banks and elitists have used their powers to create financial bubbles using lots of smoke and credit default mirrors. Watch now as it evapourates like the schemes used to create it. Money for nothing and your chicks for free. Disney and Vegas, we bought into it all. The truth is in the math and physics you can read just a few inches above. There are limits to growth and we've been on dangerous ground for some time now. The chance of averting major trauma is behind now us.

What purpose does it serve to have most of the wealth in the least amount of hands? We're starting to get a glimpse of how that experiment will end.

500 million. I think I heard Paul Elich say that would be a reasonable number of humans to consider or plan for a sustainable population with reasonable activities in commerce and trade with just a few of the millions of comforts and luxuries we flaunt today...

I'm not your straw man

Rolf,

Thanks for posting that. I don't know why the editors didn't in the original article.

Now, that said, I write three columns a week. To take two columns and say you know everything about my politics is absurd. I have strongly supported a carbon tax, gay marriage, and the legalization of all drugs. I have strongly opposed "tough on crime" nonsense and American-style criminal justice policies. Not exactly standard neo-con stuff, is it? Incidentally, I get kicked around quite a bit by right-wing bloggers who would find it hysterical that you and others here are pegging me as a corporate conservative.(And "admitted admirer of the National Post"?? Where on earth did that come from?)

I take your point that commodity prices are falling because of the economic crisis. In fact, I wrote exactly that in my column. Thanks for noticing.

And on the key point about there being no limits to growth: I will give a crisp new $100 bill to anyone who can find a column of mine in which I said such a thing. I criticized the Limits to Growth report, yes. But it takes a Manichean mind to think that alone means I agree with Julian Simon et all that growth can go on infinitely. In fact, my position on this is that (many) environmentalists and economists have taken extreme and unreasonable positions, that both have legitimate and substantive points, and that both would come to more reasonable conclusions if they tempered their arguments with the insights of the other side. I realize that's terribly wishy-washy but there it is.

And that happens to be why I am so disappointed in the editors of the Tyee. This article very clearly attributes to me a view that I simply do not hold.

Dan Gardner

Good Grief!

This is enough upset for one day. Everyone, take two deep breaths. Turn on the comedy channel. Avoid Global, CTV or CBC. Snuggle under a comforter. Laugh, laugh and laugh some more! Enjoy!

Dan Gardner, Why don't you

Dan Gardner,

Why don't you take my Principle and try to break it?

Not just argue against it, but break it.

I'll make it easier for you :

"Wealth is the temporary control of energy"

"Wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors the environment, or the future"

"Costs (I mean real costs, not the monetary fraud) can not be cut, only transferred on other sectors, etc....."

"With bank deregulation money has become a licence for the control of energy, issued by a special interest sector for its own benefit"

Cheers, Ed Deak.

Good article. Proof is that

Good article.
Proof is that Dan Gardner entered the fray.
His approach to issues does tend to be liberal -- in the classical sense.
But the articles of his i've seen in our CW publication (TC) include some "neo-liberal" ideas as well. interestingly, I don't think the TC printed the articles mentioned in this essay. Maybe because they are trying to keep their readership?

Margaret Atwod is a national treasure. For the content and style of her writing.

Limit's to growth are real - but damned if you say it

Nobody likes limits.

And the fantasty of economic growth is that there are none.

Atwood, like other intelligent people who have highlighted limits to growth is simply getting the defensive reactions protecting a system that itself professes not to have limits.

Since it is the Emperor who has no clothes in this instance, those reactions are huge and must be challenged.

If we are not able to embrace the simple pleasures of life as our real source of joy, we may - quite simply - have nothing left to embrace.

On every level, challenging the religion, fanaticism, and simple error of the growth ideal becomes a true act of survival.

Margaret Atwood and others are making it that much easier for all of us.

Link to Gardner's article

I have not received any email from Dan Gardner. Are you sure you sent it to the right address, Dan?

.

You're right, Dan, we should have linked to your article in Weyler's Views piece. We'll do so.

In the meantime, here's the link to what Gardner wrote about Atwood and her views so Tyee readers can judge for themselves:

http://www.dangardner.ca/Coloct2408.html

And although Gardner doesn't provide links in his column to the Atwood op-ed and interview that he cites to mount his attack, I'll provide those here as well.

'A Matter of Life and Debt' in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/opinion/22atwood.html?em

Maclean's Interview: Margaret Atwood

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/10/02/margaret-atwood/

Tyee readers may also be interested in Gardner's latest column reprinted in the Vancouver Sun: 'Folks, We Live in an Age of Abundance'

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d4cfa7c2-77e7-49c0-a4e1-c2fea0252903&k=88264

On getting the news out

After reading Peter Dmitrov's excellent posts above (The Great Turning), I was filled, both at the same time, with despair and hope - despair from reading yet another exposition of how we've arrived at today's sorry pass, and hope that the mess is so complete that dramatic change might now be seen as the only way out of it. He cites Obama's election as an indication that the US electorate is ready for it, though we, of course, can only hope for that eventuality.

This is steady fare for Tyee readers, by far the majority of whom find themselves in agreement with it as well as the many others before it.

But while he notes the complacency of Canadians, at the same he suggests that through activism we prod our Leadership toward constructive policies - surely a "faint hope clause" given the oft-repeated fact that the MSM will never give the public the factual information necessary to prod them into action. So Driftwolf's comment about Canwest's "propaganda machine" set me to thinking.......

I try very hard to limit my exposure to Leftist / Environmentalist propaganda, lest its uniformly dismal content drives me, a person who genuinely cares, toward suicide, or at best a self-protective blind ideology, for one can take only so much. It is easy to see then, why the public doesn't want to listen.

Canwest is not in business to supply truthful information, but rather "infotainment" designed not to unduly upset their readers / viewers (and advertisers) by forcing people to confront unwelcome facts, esp the seemingly unsolvable ones we beat upon in the Tyee. If it and the other media did so, they would soon be out of business.

The unfortunate truth is that the public has been trained, from cradle to grave - almost like Socialism, eh, :-), to be consumers. All that is really needed in life is a job, and then you can buy anything you want, including happiness. So why worry about politics, eh?

So how do we reach the public ?

Continued below.

Continued

Many years ago I owned and studied Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals. He was a great believer in the need for attracting the public's attention by focusing ridicule upon his industrial opponents.

Such an instance (in the 50's?) of this which has stuck in my mind and which I will try to recount from memory, is as follows.

The union working for Eastman Kodak found itself in a protracted lock-out-strike with that company, which showed no signs of resolution.

Shortly before the strike, the Company's home town, Rochester New York, had just opened a state-of-the-art airport which had attracted National attention. The town itself was justifiably proud of its airport, as was Eastman Kodak which had participated in its creation and prominently featured that in its promotional brochures.

So the Union obtained the arrival times of all the inbound flights, and along with the help of sympathetic citizens, arranged for long lineups for all the toilet stalls, and in those days before in-flight biffys, blocked the debarking passengers from relieving themselves.

The story, along with the Union's case, attracted National coverage, and Kodak quickly settled.

Something similar was recently tried in the lampooning of the Sun, and despite their being SLAPPed, the story still got out.

It seems to me that as I F Stone demonstrated, the humour in the news headlines alone is abundant, as is the demonstrably ridiculous utterances of various CEOs. There is a goldmine of material with which the Corporations, CEOs and all their hangers-on could be made fun of.

It's worth a try anyway, since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with the present tack.

Dan Gardner: Inadvertent Irony

Mr. Gardner, whom I've never met, may have a lot in common with Tyee readers. Or not. It's unlikely to matter, because Gardner's comments on the Tyee (in response to the article by Rex Weyler accurately quoting Gardner's own words) is classic irony.

Like hundreds of employees of CanWestGlobal, Gardner may not realize the role he plays in the delivery of a carefully controlled product by a media monopoly. (Perhaps this will trigger his curiosity--I recommend reading Ben Bagdikian's "New Media Monopoly"). But if Gardner doesn't do what is expected of him, there will others to take his place. That's the problem--a systemic problem--with Mr. Gardner's employer, and the model that corporate media follows in North America. Yes, it is difficult for employees to question the ethical conduct of their workplace. And it takes courage. But many have done so. Gardner's spontaneous comment on the Tyee is stunning.

"I find it astonishing to see comments from readers who are quite sure I'm some sort of savage neo-con Reaganite because they've read a brief, second-hand account of one sentence in one column!"

Mr. Gardner, welcome to the power of mass media. Unlike the small presses and alternative media outlets like the Tyee, CanWestglobal, Westinghouse (NBC) and General Electric (CBS) get to do EXACTLY what you've described, with impunity, day in and day out. And they do. And as we know, the pen is mightier than the sword. Especially a monopoly pen.

As the Tyee, Rabble, Gush Shalom and other media outlets TRY and pose alternative views, CanWest's dailies, David Black's weeklies and other elites publish day in, day out, with the same, self serving corporate messaging. And most citizens are REALLY tired of reading this stuff.

Mr. Gardner's description of Paul Krugman could be applied perfectly to Mr. Gardner's employer, or Gordon Campbell, or Stephen Harper:

"He will routinely find himself surrounded by people who treat his every grunt and flatulent emission as a pearl to be collected and venerated. Inevitably, his monomania will grow to Kim Jong-Il proportions."

You have raised MANY important points Mr.Gardner. Thank you for that.

Spaceship Earth

Of course its the elephant in the room.

I am taking part in citizens of the Comox Valley developing a 'sustainability' strategy.

No acknowledge of limits so far, though it appears water meters being suggested is a good indication that water availability is a limiting factor.

Lots of talk of becoming 'more sustainable', which to me means that you are assuming our current way of living is already sustainable!

We are not going to recycle our way to sustainability, as long as we set out to 'grow' (or gorge) more each year!

I also think the current financial crisis is an indicator that the 'managed' global economy is not sustainable and crashed because limits were ignored and financial value was 'created' by voodoo transaction mechanisms (e.g.derivatives), and now they want to be bailed out

When in space astronauts surely realize there are limits (they have to bring their own oxygen and water!) on their spaceship.

The same holds true for our spaceship-sure its a big spaceship, but its got too last for the whole journey!

Not a limit...a shift

While I agree that there are physical limits to growth. There are only so many mouths that can be fed with a loaf. I disagree that the 'growth' cannot continue.

Each of us posting here is participating in a new form of economy.

One that has NO PHYSICAL LIMITS.

One that anyone with the means to connect to it can participate in.

Take advantage of it...this kind of opportunity only comes about once every 5 centuries or so...

Within the space of the current generation...those born after the year 2000, no one will recognize how anything 'got done' in the days before planetary instant communications.

You are all right now taking part in this shift by either reading or posting here.

Think about it.

Learn more.

Atwood is a buffoon

Once the liberal elite in Toronto made Atwood a darling and poster girl for their beliefs she began to take herself way too seriously and ventured far beyond her skill as a writer. She's got alot of nerve to tell Canadians how to lead their lives as individuals. That's oh so white of her.

No, what if I don't want to stop and smell the roses and walk in the park because I am struggling with house payments and raising the family? What if I'm an immigrant and I want to work hard to ensure my kids climb the economic ladder. Maybe it's okay for Atwood at her station and age to limit her growth and consumption but it's certainly presumptuous of her to limit others.

Gardner is right to point out that Atwood is abusing her celebrity intellectual status. And her writing in this area is shallow and poorly supported.

Limiting others who wish to consume themselves with achievement limits society and makes it a worse place. The personal computer wouldn't have been invented and many other beneficial inventions wouldn't exist without the passion of single minded individuals.

Seeing things as they are

I agree with so many of the above posters.

Well-meaning journalists, such as Dan Gardner, so comfortably ensconced in their well-paying MSM jobs, have blinders on but don't even know it. They have to, or they'd quit (as some have, usually to the derision or pity of their co-workers who see those who have left as "career failures").

The public is fed news by 1. cheerfully brain-washed, self-servingly ignorant (90%) 2. spineless and fearful (5%) 3. obtusely plank-stupid (70% - a subset of #1), or 4. corrupt (5%) journalists and editors working in these organizations - every single one whom, somewhere along the line, have talked themselves into believing that corporate growth is the be-all, end-all of society's existence, and thus, talked themselves into their own paycheques.

Until the intellectually-lazy public awakens to the fact that most MSM media serves only to promote global-corporate/consumerist propaganda, our society will continue to hurtle down the path towards utter and real catastrophe.

Consume thyself!

Please B. Peru, clarify this for us. If Atwood is a buffoon, that makes you a what....?

Assumming a buffon is indeed a definition for a human who is intellectually challenged, your writing would be several evolutionary stages behind that. I'm just wondering what we call you? Missing link perhaps? Cro?

You want to grind your nose and face off to spite your face. You are the perfect consummer advocate for the status quo. You don't see the danger ahead because you were told not to look there so you don't. Because if you actually took a peak, you'd stop and stare. You'd want to know why. But you're afraid. You have the blinders on and you look straight down as you plow ahead. Don't worry about the cliff ahead though, if you can't set it, it probably doesn't exist.

Growth Cannot Continue

Murdock, economic growth of any kind translates into greater consumption/destruction of this finite planet's resources (ultimately, its ecosystems). We are already in a state of overshoot. In plain terms that means we are destroying the means of our own survival.

As Ed Deak regularly reminds us, "REAL COSTS CAN NOT BE CUT, ONLY TRANSFERRED ON OTHER SECTORS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS."

Limits of Green.

I'd like to see the limits of green debated.

Green Paint?

Ever heard of an ecosystem?

It operates within limits!

It is green

Thus endeth the lesson!

I'm not your straw man either, Dan

You ask where the idea that you admire The National Post comes from? Consider the following quote from your attack on Atwood: "Jonathan Kay gave Atwood's attack on the Conservative government a good fisking in the National Post, but Rosedale intellectuals wear conservative attacks like soldiers wear medals. It's the CBC, the Star and the Globe that count. And they wouldn't dare. She's Margaret Freaking Atwood!" The implications are that progressive news media sources like the CBC, the Star, and yes, even the Globe are to be scorned as too cowardly to attack a fellow progressive like Atwood, but the writings of a jouurnalist from The National Post is somehow credible--credible, that is, if you admire it. You write that you acknowledge the world deflationary economic crisis, but you actually waffle about it (from your Nov. 25 Vancouver Sun article): "And you know all those dire stories that appeared this week warning that we may experience deflation? Six months ago, we were warned about inflation. Or worse, stagflation. The fact that deflation is a serious possibility now means those threats have vanished. But you don't put that in the headlines because good news isn't news. News, by definition, is bad." Further: "It's also true that deflation is a serious threat. Even the drop in oil prices will do real damage. (Cheap oil means conservation and research on alternative energy will decline, which means we will continue to be addicted to oil and the squeeze we experienced this spring will almost certainly return some day.) That's all bad. But stagflation is also bad. Resource shortages are bad. Food riots are bad. And the drop in commodity prices has caused all these bad things to go away." So you're not actually treating the crisis seriously.

Continued...

But yes, you do mention it. And yes, I noticed, thanks. And about judging your politics on the basis of two columns: everything I write identifies me as a left-leaning social democratic progressive writer: I don't cherry pick issues to somehow waffle between sides so that I can't be nailed down as to where I actually stand (when in fact yours is quite apparent). In your attack on Atwood, you lambaste her for critisizing Harper's attack on the arts: well, Dan, what did you expect her to do, lie back and take it? Especially when she is one of Canada's preeminent artists and therefore speaks with a voice that is much more easily heard than other artists? And if she is a "celebrity intellectual" (an expression that smacks of an attack on intellectuals in general, as if their opinions somehow therefore count for less), then you are a "celebrity journalist," whose contentious opinions elevate them above mere mortal journalists, and also make their voices more widely heard. Also, your ideology is as well determined by the company you keep (and all of my associates are social justice oriented progressives and left-leaning, too), and you've been tagged by Ottawa Citizen journalist John Robson as a "friend and colleague." Robson last year told UN Housing expert Miloon Kothari after he visited Canada and warned of its out of control homelessness problem to shut up and go home in one of his columns. Not exactly socially progressive, eh, Dan? I tend to agree with one of the previous commenters that your views tend to be neo-liberal--maybe calling you a neo-con was going too far. But that's the only concession I'll make.

Ronny Reagan

Nobel words indeed! But in the end, he really meant more stuff and baubles......

Perhaps, if the replicator from Star Trek: The Next Generation were invented, then we could have unlimitd baubles. But then, if they are unlimited, why would we want them.........?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(Star_Trek)

Thanks for that David

Posting Mr. Gardner's column about Margaret Atwood was very helpful. I had read it - but I'm sure many people here hadn't read it.

It also did a good deal to clarify what Mr. Gardner's actually all about.

The reader can't help but to conclude he may be suffering from a little professional jealousy.

I don't know whether Peggy will ever get the Nobel prize for literature, I'm told that the judges aren't too keen about North American literature these days - they see it (the work of writers from North America) as been isolated and parochial.

I'm not actually sure that's fair comment but I know Dan Gardner's wasn't.

Growth MUST continue

Romeogolf:

"Murdock, economic growth of any kind translates into greater consumption/destruction of this finite planet's resources (ultimately, its ecosystems). We are already in a state of overshoot. In plain terms that means we are destroying the means of our own survival."

I am not speaking of greater consumption.

Tell me please, how much more consumption was created by our postings here?

As living things, we humanity, must continually grow or DIE. Do we have to always grow with more stuff? Can we not grow with more knowledge? Can we not grow by changing the application of that knowlege in more sustainable ways?

You state that 'we' are in overshoot.
Please describe this in detail as I cannot understant what you are trying to say.

I do not see that everywhere and at all times we are destroying the means of our survival. I agree that far and away too many 'nations' have 'stripmined' away their own habitats and some means of their future support, however the power to compel this kind of behaviour ongoing is already on the wane and has been since 1989.

"As Ed Deak regularly reminds us, "REAL COSTS CAN NOT BE CUT, ONLY TRANSFERRED ON OTHER SECTORS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.""

Yes and I say that the time for real costs being applied to OTHER SECTORS has come, since the future and our nest are not going to absorb any more.

The lever that can move those costs is called 'the internet' or planetary real-time communications. We are taking part in it right now.

Grow, learn or die.

The high tech info sector is far from green

Check this url out -a BBC report on the environmental impact of manufacturing computers and high tech waste:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3541623.stm

secondly, think about the environmental costs in transporting the computers to wholesale and retail outlets across the world, and then transporting them to be trashed or re-cycled...think carbon, think oil.

...think of the electricity that goes into the manufacture of computers...in the US a great deal of power comes from coal ...much of it mined on Indian land in the 4 Corners of the USA

...think of the minerals and water used in the manufacture of computers, especially the use of water...google that fact Murdoch

...think of the copper and silca mined for telecommunication lines upon which your blogging come and go

...if you are one of the millions gamers on the planet...consider the energy demands from that.

...then think of the military uses of computers world wide..

... just where does the tons of 'plastic' go that is wrapped around computers, printers, cell phone, MP3 packaging...actually go ...there is no "away" ...we have one earth....this is it!

while I get your point Murdoch, the rate of 'throughputs' and 'waste' from the high tech sector (computers, cellphones which folks use to send emails and check the Web with; MP3 players, cameras, and batteries) is very demanding on the natural world....and most countries,including Canada do NOT have "extended product responsibility" legislation...excepting the EU ..which is way ahead than most on this matter. Growth per se is not what we need, rather 'genuine progress', and much more responsibility by corporations for their products and their end destinations.

Atwood's Massey Lectures online

Anyone interested can listen to all 5 of Atwood's recent Massey Lectures, where she presents ideas from her book cited in the Tyee article, at this CBC site page:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey.html

Real...starts with the 'unreal'

Thank you Peter Dimitrov:

"while I get your point Murdoch, the rate of 'throughputs' and 'waste' from the high tech sector (computers, cellphones which folks use to send emails and check the Web with; MP3 players, cameras, and batteries) is very demanding on the natural world....and most countries,including Canada do NOT have "extended product responsibility""

That throughput is not absolutely neccessary. Nor is the constant re-design of EVERYTHING.

Check out The Story of Stuff and see what is being done and can continue to be done about these issues.

Growth in anything in the "REAL" world started in someone's "IMAGINATION" or 'unreal' world. In a world of instant communications where we can share these ideas FASTER than ever before, then why cannot the Growth continue...simply in a different sector and in a different - potentially sustainable - way?

Stop being bounded by the ways of the past...as to stay in the past is to wither and die.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ~ A. Einstien.

Dan Gardner

After reading Dan Gardner's offending column, his defence of his opinions and outlook is sorely lacking. His piece is nothing but a nasty, bitter screed. I question the editor(s) who originally published and then reprinted this drivel.

The National Pest as some fount of wise opinion. Please...?

Finally, in the spirit if the coming season, from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" a reply to DG:
You're a three decker saurkraut and toadstool sandwich
With arsenic sauce!

reading comprehension

Ladies and gentlemen,

I was going to let this go. The folks here have clearly decided I am just another corporate lapdog. Nothing I write will make the slightest difference. OK, fine.

But there's only so much misleading crap I can put up with.

Take this gem: "Dan's on record as saying he believes 'climate change is bunk."

The person who wrote this is either a liar or, more likely, someone sorely in need of a little remedial reading comprehension.

That line comes from a column in which I argued that even if anthropogenic climate change isn't true, carbon taxes are still a good idea. Yes, I wrote the phrase "climate change is bunk." But I wrote it after carefully explaining that I think the people who believe that climate change is bunk are sadly deluded. Then I went on to, for the sake of argument, let's say they're right....

(Judge for yourself. The original can be found at www.dangardner.ca ).

Look, differences of opinion are fine. Pissing on me is fine. But no one has the right to misrepresent my writing -- and a hell of a lot of the comments here do just that.

And another thing. At the core of Mr. Weyler's article is an interesting and important point about the interpretation of the Limits to Growth report. I'll write something about that on my blog soon. http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/default.aspx

Anyone who wishes to engage in substantive debate is welcome to have a look and post rebuttals. I'll even be happy to post the narrow-minded ramblings of ideologues who can't read.

Dan Gardner

Graeme Gibson quote

Speaking of limits to growth and the need for more financial regulations, here is an interesting quote from author Graeme Gibson. (He is Margaret Atwood's husband.) It's from his 1993 novel Gentleman Death (hardcover, p. 76): "...we dream our bereft and frenzied dreams of Progress and Profit, of Efficiency and the Free Market, all that dead wood from the nineteenth century. The voters sense that. We all know that Mulroney, Bush, Thatcher, the whole dreary crew are merely branch-plant managers in the bankrupt Empire of Usury."

Dan, with respect

And nobody has the right to misrepresent what Margaret Atwood is or has written either.

If you don't like poking fun and playing fast and loose with the facts I'd say that's dandy and you can stop doing it any time you please. As for spending time reading any more facile justifications for the 'Margaret 'fucking' Atwood' column you post (or will post) at your blog... why would anyone bother?

It isn't just because CanWest papers are little more than ad copy that people don't read them - most of us gave up years ago.

The occasional column that comes to my attention, like that one of yours or Leonard’s explication of the current state of the company from the Financial Post (now included, ‘gratis’ in place of the meager business content in the local dailies) simply reconfirms the conclusion that not much would be missed if they all just faded away like CanWest stock is doing.

If you think you can justify that piece of literary drive by, why not do it here?

finite necessities

I don't think I'm quite grasping the argument here. The question seems to be 'are there any limits to growth?'

The answer seems quite simple and self evident. The factor that will limit growth is that element which is essential to growth that runs out first. It can't be that very long a list.

What are the essentials necessary to human growth? Let's list only those that will end human viability when exhausted.

-Food, obviously.
-breathable air
-temperature that permits water to exist as liquid and supports plant growth.
-energy in useful amounts and forms.
-sufficient fertile humans to breed
-materials for technology, though we could have an interesting discussion about whether humans without technology are in fact still human.
-drinkable water
-arable soil, or equivalent
-sufficient space to maintain minimum distances between people to avoid lethal conflicts. This would be expressed as a ratio between the growth and the shrinkage due to lethal conflict.

Any more? Well, anyway. The first essential element to growth that runs out limits growth.

Or am I missing something?

Uh, Bobby?

"That's oh so white of her".

Methinks that was a racist comment....

haha

"What if I'm an immigrant and I want to work hard to ensure my kids climb the economic ladder. Maybe it's okay for Atwood at her station and age to limit her growth and consumption but it's certainly presumptuous of her to limit others"

Maybe your kids want to chill out and aren't all that interested in economics, and you should just let them live how they wish, rather than brainwash and mold them into being "mini Bobbys". I'm nowhere near Atwood's age nor station in life, and I agree with her completely.

This was just funny:
"Limiting others who wish to consume themselves with achievement limits society and makes it a worse place."
I don't think Atwood is proposing people don't try and ACHIEVE things per se, and that we should all sit around lazily and stare at the grass growing day after day. She's talking about a BALANCE- and at the this point in time, we are WAY out of balance. Grab a couple books, my friend. Doesn't have to be Atwood- start with 'Song of the DoDo', by David Quammen.

my response

For anyone interested in the core issue of Mr. Weyler's column -- just what The Limits to Growth report did or did not say -- I've posted my response on my blog.

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/default.aspx

And Mr. Deak: There are plenty of people who are not "nuts or bought off" who dispute your claim. They include top cancer researchers and scientific institutions. I discuss this issue at great length in my book "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear." Don't worry. You don't have to buy it and give me royalties. I'm sure it's available in your local library. If you're mind isn't as closed as your comment suggests, have a look.

Dan Gardner

That's no response at all Dan

The issue isn't Weyler's column, it is your column.

The fact you won't contend with the chop-job you did on Margaret Atwood here at Tyee, after coming here of your own accord, is passing strange.

But not too hard to understand - this comment thread will be open for a couple more days - you still have a chance.

The fact you seem mostly interested in blasting others unfairly certainly hasn't gone without notice.

As for reading more of your own words at your employer's crib (nice to see how you insinuated another self promo above me here)- I'm just not interested.

You dipped your oar here of your own accord, now why run off the moment things get interesting?

G West, I only have so much

G West,

I only have so much time in the day. Anyone who wants to respond to my response on my blog is welcome.

And, um, you're wrong about the point here. Weyler's article was about The Limits to Growth report. It was only passingly, and pointlessly, about the unkind things I said about Margaret Atwood.

But if you want to have a go at my column, be my guest, whether here or in the comments on my blog.

Dan

Dan

With respect, I already have – if you’ll take the trouble to look. Your column about Atwood speaks for itself – a line- by-line destruction of its methodology and purpose would be pointless. Your meretricious style neither educates nor enlightens – it certainly does polish your own brass though.

And you haven't taken the time to respond with anything more substantive than your original drive by on Maggie Atwood and, by implication, literary writers in general.

You seem to find the time for what interests you Dan - calling people names, being rude, and not actually doing any research before you criticize.

Posting something at your blog gives you and CanWest more attention - something neither of you richly deserve.
I think that's why you came here in the first place because I haven't seen a single example of anything but ad hominem criticism and sloppy writing from you - here, or in your columns at the Citizen.

I don't need any more of that kind of thing, so I'll stay away from your latest effort in self-promotion.

G West, Explain something,

G West,

Explain something, please. How is it that, in criticizing various political and social observations made by Margaret Atwood, I insulted "literary writers in general"? Really. I've love to know.

As for "not doing any research," well, you are taking it for granted that Mr. Weyler's attack on what I wrote is the whole, complete and final truth. It's not. In fact, there is a very good defence of what I wrote. It's on my blog.

Maybe you should have a look -- you know, do some research before you attack me.

Oh, but as you grandly state, you won't do that. Kinda funny criticizing me on that score then, isn't it?

Dan

Reread your own column Dan

Do I have to quote it for you?

Margaret Atwood, whether you like her style, her taste, her friends or her politics, is a writer of international stature and considerable achievement.

From your bio, I think you're biting off a little more than you can chew. From the column in question, I’m sure of it.

She is not 'Margaret 'fucking' Atwood' and anyone who pretends to be doing serious journalistic work is playing fast and loose when they imply that kind of comment is either fair or even handed.

If you wanted to contest what she wrote and what she believes you could have done it - people with columns and a readership have a responsibility.

You seem to have forgotten yours.

You may not like what she has to say, you may even dislike the sources she uses to support her thesis. All of that is well and good but you've engaged in cheap, shallow sensationalism and serially refused to actually contend with that - despite the many opportunities you've had to do it.

I don't know why you bothered; it's hard to see both that column and your subsequent postings here as either substantial or worthwhile.

I suspect someone from the Citizen brought Weyler's column to your attention and you, as others have noted, decided to visit a little more of the same on Tyee readers.

Nothing you've written so far convinces of anything else.

Margaret Atwood is a writer and a damn good one.

It is clearly obvious you aren't. It will be some time before you're invited to give the Massey lectures Dan. That much is clear.

Perhaps you'd like to 'take on' a few other writers and thinkers who've been given the honour.

I can provide you with a comprehensive list: Perhaps you'd be so kind as to start with Martin Luther King Jr.?

TKO

Dan this isn't a Rocky film, stay down and take the count before there's permanent damage...

I'm sure you're not a bad

I'm sure you're not a bad sort, Dan, although writing regularly for the Notional Pest is more a blot than a star on one's resume. Anyone who could post an article like "The Great Minds of Wall St.
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2008/11/28/the-greats-minds-of-wall-street.aspx

...has to have a sense of humour.

Unfortunately, you DID miss a few. Michael Hudson, Carlota Perez, Francesco Bellini, Lawrence Klein, and maybe Rich Branson and Jeffrey Sachs. If you can't show us your left-wing credentials, how about at least showing us your centrist ones? An article on any of these might be worth a read.

...if only to see if you call any of them
Joe 'fucking' Blow for their opinions of the dismal science.

Yeah!

"That throughput is not absolutely neccessary. Nor is the constant re-design of EVERYTHING."

Case in point:

I write all my stuff on a computer from the early nineties, running windows 98 and using a small, non-LCD screen. I could afford to trash it and get a top-of-the-line gadget, but I learned as a girl scout, that 'frugality means taking good care of what you already own'. It is amazing that we still can get people to accept the words 'purchase' and 'save' as part of the same operational term, when in fact they are opposites. You buy, you have spent your money, not saved it. It reminds me of the Danish social democrat thinking, where earning was defined as money you didn't have to spend because you owned a resource, e.g. 4% of your property equity would be slapped on top of your taxable income, known as 'rental value of own property'. Needless to say, everyone not completely daft would be mortgaged to the rafters - particularly as mortgage interest was deductible. Another e.g., a farmer would be taxed for the value of rotted and therefore unuseable straw bales, which he would use for home fuel. Or how about, if a construction worker took a year off in order to build himself a house, he would be assessed as having earned a full salary, because his work had benefitted him; ergo, an income.

I don't know if these imaginative ways of fleecing taxpayers still rule the old country, as I haven't been back. But it allowed me to grow up knowing full well the meaning of newspeak, and to recognize it whenever I meet it.