On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:22:03 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does
bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If you
ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended consequences.
We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet the city fathers
are actively trying to get more industry into the area as well as more
people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an increasing
problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the discussion provided
by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an economic necessity. We
appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu
==========
This is true, but only if one uses/accepts the current standard
socio-economic-political model/assumptions, and even here it is
important to differentiate between "growth" and "progress." As a
counter example, consider the many of traditional societies that
have managed to exist on a static basis for millennia, but they
have a very different view of property rights, ownership,
entitlement, etc.

This also why a new socio-economic/political is needed.

In your case of a limiting and over exploited resource [water], a
very useful and insightful article is "The Tragedy of the
Commons" by Garrett Hardin. For background and overview see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
For the actual article see
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html

In many cases "growth" is substituted for "progress" as this is
considerably easier, generally cheaper in the short run, and most
politicians understand the concept of "more of the same only
better." Unfortunately, "progress" rather than "growth" is
generally required for any sustainable long-term increase in
aggregate benefits. "Progress" also has a general tendency to
reduce the power and influence of the existing elite, while
"growth" tends to increase their power and influence, so it is a
"no brainer" to see which one will be preferred/suggested.

While Harden makes a number of valid points, he is a
neo-Malthusian and disparages technical solutions. In your
particular case of limited water availability, all that may be
required is the introduction of industries that don't require
much water, encouragement of home owners to use native plantings
adapted to semiarid conditions rather than attempting to grow the
traditional suburban lawn, minimum lot sizes to limit population
density, and possibly the use of gray water from sinks, washing
machines, and dish washers to water the garden/trees. Minor
adaptations to conditions rather than an absolute ban on growth.
One of the least successful approaches is the creation of a water
conservation district, complete with licenses, fees, permits,
inspectors, and the seizure of individual water rights, with the
water then allocated to the "most worthy."

Your use of "Ponzi scheme" seems appropriate. The promoters and
the people at the front of the [water] line reap the benefits,
while the people at the back of the line get nothing but the
bills and water rationing.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).