Yuku free message boards

In this chapter McKibbin writes: "the men and women at the center of our economic and political lives have not treated climate change as anything more than another problem to be dealt with as we've dealt with problems in the past; certainly they don't perceive it as something that would call into question the doctrine of endless economic expansion" (24, emphasis mine). He cites liberals who "question not expansion but only the way that the new money is spread around," and how "the Democratic party and the union movement typically demand even faster growth." Essentially, wherever you stand along the economic divide, from CEO to labor, we're all equally "intellectually invested in the current system" (14).

I wonder what kind of economic and political platform could emerge, within an industrialized, Western nation, which questions economic growth. Could a politician develop a successful campaign where she espouses decelerated economic growth? To me, it (a campaign based on decelerated economic growth, not necessarily the deceleration itself) sounds like a ludicrous idea. She wouldn't get anywhere. Which illustrates McKibbin's point that-assuming this is a necessary or attractive course-there would need to be a substantial reeducation/consciousness-raising effort to demonstrate that ever-expanding economic growth and development is not sustainable. And, according to McKibbin's discussion in this chapter, this would need to include along with climate change, a discussion involving the social impact of unmitigated growth.

So my question is, who sees McKibbin's premise as something that needs to be seriously considered and examined, and who thinks it's crazy to question the virtues of economic expansion?

One other thought. McKibbin refers to an annual poll taken by the National Opinion Research Council which asks, "would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" (35). According to the poll, the U.S. for "very happy" peaked in the 1950s and steadily declined to today. But I wonder if there is more to consider than the issues McKibbin raises. Could the increased rate of reported dissatisfaction parallel individuals becoming more honest with their feelings? Can you picture a 1950s housewife admitting to her unhappiness? (I'm imagining the 1950s character from The Hours.) Compare an individual from 1950 to 2007, aren't people, male and female, more explicit with their emotions? Part of the mass media effort (I'm not saying this was a concerted effort) mid-20th century demonstrated happiness, especially post-WWII. Americans were expected to play the part of the contented U.S. citizen. Trade June Cleaver for Roseanne Barr. Media at the end of the 20th century demonstrated that it was o.k. to be honest with your emotions-good or bad. Teen angst became a t.v. drama genre all its own. Hiding your emotional failings from you neighbors became less essential. And keeping up with the Joneses traded appearances of contentedness with actual material consumption. I don't know whether or not we are less happy now-I just think there are more things to take into account than economic development.