The irrelevance of the presidential debates

Correction 1:20 p.m.: the original post was missing some paragraphs near e end. They have been restored.

To the Editor:

Every candidate, as well as nearly all pundits, economists, historians, politicians and social scientists, agree that we must grow. Consumerism is our contemporary religion. Growth is essential to human institutions, so say the experts.

Growth means converting “natural” molecules into “useful” molecules, which includes making more people. In nature, growth is a sign of disruption or catastrophe. An undisturbed environment (of which there are none left on earth) is constantly changing, but remains in a sort of dynamic equilibrium. There are endless checks and balances that inhibit the growth of any one species.

So if uncontrolled growth is in nature highly unusual and typically catastrophic, why do we insist that growth is a necessary and good thing? Why have we founded our entire global civilization on growth?

The answer to the puzzle is relatively simple. All creatures are built to push outward against competition and environmental constraints, running as fast as possible to stay in one place. Humans are unique in having used technology to break through one constraint after another. We continue to run as fast as possible, building one technology on another, but limits are finally piling up faster than we can cope with them, and we don’t know what to do next.

We may argue exactly which resources are irreplaceable, or exactly when and how we will suffer from shortages, disease, environmental degradation or social conflict, but there is no denying that we cannot continue to grow indefinitely. We have Plan A: continue to grow indefinitely, which is impossible. But we have no Plan B. In fact, a Plan B must defy all our built-in urges to push outward.

Optimists imagine that humans can sooner or later get together and figure out a Plan B, even though it runs counter to human nature. Pessimists such as I point out that while such efforts do occur, they have had little effect on human growth, and that the limits are rapidly multiplying.

But optimist and pessimist alike must puzzle at the contemporary religion of consumerism.

As long as the dialogue is about how to continue with Plan A, as in the presidential debates, it is hard to take the dialogue seriously. Choosing a president who believes in science would probably help, however.

Gordon Tully