New book „Which growth is sustainable? A presentation of arguments” out now!

3 Comments

1. -
   Posted 27. March 2009 at 20:14 | Permalink

   Unfortunately, the conference does not seem to deal precisely with modes of transition, but the big stakes are probably there. For a discussion, see http://yannickrumpala.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/degrowth-as-transition/

2. Daniël du Toit
   Posted 18. February 2010 at 09:43 | Permalink

   We, at The Kontrei Traveller Portfolio, a group of tourism product owners making a contribution to sustainable tourism, follow the following mind set about the relationship Economy and environment(natural and cultural)

   I would like to be among entrepreneurs in tourism who operate like the bat. Living in its “home”,it signals to the home environment and gathers the echoed information, translating that into the relevant information to guide it in the right direction.

   Like the bat, let me gather the relevant information about my place and my Kontrei before I inject my money and my technology into the business. Let it not be a once off exercise but a dynamic, ongoing relationship between the entrepreneur, the place and the kontrei for the purpose of sustainability.

   It stands to reason that the environmental “embeddedness” will be sought in the understanding and application of economic tools by the individual entrepreneur.
   © Copyright : Niël du Toit and Kontrei Traveller 2008- All rights Reserved

   Two economic thinking models
   Regarding the “embeddedness” of the environment, referring to the Economy/ Environment(Natural and Cultural) relationship, I came across two standpoints.
   Firstly
   This standpoint is characterized by the separation of Economy and Environment. The relationship is one of either or. It is either the Economy or the Environment.
   It can also be interpreted in terms of “here” and “there”, taking production resources from there to create and distribute wealth in my economic activity, here
   The Economy represents “Pure Logic” in terms of economic growth
   And the Environment – save the primary economic production resources – mainly as “constraints”

   The standpoint results in economic growth as the purpose of the economy.
   Measuring the ”Pure Logic Success” using the GDP or GSP

   Secondly
   The standpoint used by less influential individuals where the Economy and the Environment(Natural and Cultural) are distinguishable but not separated entities of reality. The Economy operates in and through the Environment. The relationship is characterized as Economy and Environment.

   People preferring this thinking model refer to the first model as one so strange, that they cannot see themselves in there any more. For such a stranger it is thus impossible to identify with the first model. They therefore experience this particular cultural creation about the economy, as bad.

   Their assessment of the first model is that of a failure in terms of the dynamic relationship between man and his cultural creations. Driven by a longing to feel at home with your creation, they started to find an alternative for model one.

   They ask two fundamental questions :
   Can man handle the consequences of economic growth?
   Will economic growth help us to survive on planet earth?
   Their answer on both questions is “No”

   © Copyright : Niël du Toit and Kontrei Traveller 2008- All rights Reserved

   In the second model the Economy still represents “Logic” but the mere mind shift results in the economic active person’s way of thinking a bit more caring about the environment. The reason for this may be the absence of “there”. In this model the environment and the economic activity are all “here”
   This way of thinking gives personal responsibility a definite, slanted “weight” away from pure logic towards conservation of resources and the idea of sustainability.
   The standpoint results in economic sustainability as the purpose of the Economy.
   Measuring “success” is the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) where GDP +X -Y = GPI
   X is the money value of “extra mile “ activities such as welfare, contribution of house wives etc
   Y is eg the cost of deforestation, the cost of medicine due to air pollution or for stress related illness due to crime etc..

   Players in this team tend to optimize profit to the benefit of stakeholders. Players are a little poorer in economic terms but probably more or less richer in quality of life because wealth is created more ethical and distributed more fairly.
   The attitude of the players is to befriend rather than to conquer as seen against the background of “earthkeeping”.
   Supporters of the second model are less in number and less influential in the global arena. The GPI is an accepted measurement but needs to be developed further to prove its reliability.
   Please see: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm
   Again it is time to exercise my freedom to respond. My knowledge about these two models means that I have to make a choice to eventually give rise to added quality of my responsibility.
   It refers to choosing to trust the second model more because of the heavier “weight”. It becomes part of my set of values. The obvious result of my choice is to choose the second model as a norm and to fill it with applicable content giving my responsibility to the economic reality, additional quality.

3. Kailee
   Posted 15. October 2011 at 13:54 | Permalink

   What I find so itnerenstig is you could never find this anywhere else.