After following the line on population growth on the list I heard a
politician on NPR bewail the fact that the gross national product had only
increased by about 2.5% this year. It reminded me of discussions I have had
with several economists on our campus who seem to be of the opinion that
economies can survive only if they have continued growth. When I point out
that unlimited exponential growth cannot be sustained indefinitely for any
real quantity and in particular for the gross national product they flatly
refuse to believe me.
Granted that one can make more money in a capitalistic society when the gnp
is rapidly expanding than when it is decreasing does it make sense to
believe that it can continue to do so indefinitely in real (inflation
adjusted) terms? In the early days of our country when the population was
growing and when new resources and territories were being added a growth in
the gnp was easy to accomplish at the expense of depleting the resources.
At later stages it can continue to grow at the expense of depleting the
resources of others. But am I wrong in assuming that eventually the growth
must stop?
I would be satisfied if the economists only argued that in the forseeable
near future growth can be sustained but they seem to be arguing not WHEN it
must stop but IF it must stop at all. Or worse yet, they are not even
considering the possibility, let alone arguing it.
(I will be leaving town for three weeks beginning Friday so will miss most
if not all of the discussion this topic might generate.)
Jim Riley, Department of Physics
Drury College
Springfield, MO 65802
e-mail: jriley@lib.drury.edu
Phone: (407) 873 7233