Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2009
The present global economic order is one which fails to recognize the finiteness of global resources and the finiteness of the global ecosystem to absorb wastes. Indeed, there may be a great deal of lip-service paid to these truths; but nevertheless the global economic system, as it is functioning today, exhibits little or no awareness that they are at all important to a stable world economy. Superimposed upon this condition is the ‘Autophage Effect’, which points to a continuing acceleration in depletion of raw resources even though the net resource-demands of the world's populations may stabilize.
This is a human predicament which cannot and will not continue indefinitely. The key question is, ‘Will Earth's societies acknowledge the situation early enough to choose alternatives?’ There appear to be only two fundamental alternatives: either the present level of population and material abundance (imperfect as it may be) will crash, or it will be replaced by a world economic order which attends to the finiteness of this planet. Should we be fortunate enough or quick enough to realize the second alternative, I suggest that the basic structure of the new economic order may rather closely resemble the ecologists' ‘trophic’ divisions in natural ecosystems (e.g. Lindeman, 1942). If this comes to pass, conservation of energy and order (negentropy) will very likely emerge as the prime forcing functions in the resulting world socio-economic order.
This exploration has progressed from logical derivation into imagination, but still leaves a plethora of unanswered questions. If one does admit that industrial civilizations must eventually face resource limitations and thereby be driven towards the patterns exposed by the hypothetical society that has been sketched here, how do we get there from our present predicament? Can such a society be capitalistic, with grossly or moderately unequal distribution of resources among its citizens? Or must it be a form of socialistic idealism; and, if so, should it be democratic or autocratic? Can the present momentum of the highconsumption Keynesian theology be redirected? And if so, how—and will there be time? If the seeds offered here have any credibility, they should be nurtured further.