SHOVELING FUEL FOR RUNAWAY TRAIN

Czech, a conservation biologist with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, pleads for an end to the American gospel of economic growth—which, he claims, is now defiling our quality of life and endangering the futures of our grandchildren.

Czech contends that neoclassical economics (the currently dominant school) has misinterpreted its own pioneers—Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo—by claiming that there are no limits to growth. While this may have seemed true in the 19th century (an era of abundant natural resources and vigorous westward expansion), it is contrary to common sense in our age of climatic change, species exterminations, and periodic regional droughts. Yet economists, the media, and politicians—notably Jack Kemp (who called for doubling the nation’s economy a few years ago)—continue to expound the notion that vigorous economic growth is good. In place of neoclassical economics, Czech calls for ecological economics—a growing body of thought that proposes physical and biological limits to economic growth. Czech is excellent at pointing out anomalies arising from neoclassical thought (such as the fact that cleanup costs for the Exxon Valdez disaster added to the gross national product), but he undermines his presentation by mentioning facts that contradict his assertions (e.g., after noting that conspicuous consumption is not a sign of creativity, he cites singers Elton John and Merle Haggard as particularly glaring examples of the “liquidating lifestyle”). Readers may also raise eyebrows when he praises The Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, while neglecting to point out how most of Ehrlich’s dire forecasts (such as his claim, made three decades ago, that the world’s oceans would be dead by 1979) have come to nought. Czech also oversteps the bounds of both reason and common sense when he discusses limiting the number of children a couple can have and urges that men and women spurn romantic suitors who are the most conspicuous consumers.

Frivolous utopian schemes that provide little in the way of practical remedies or moral challenges to a complex problem.