Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train: Errant Economists, Shameful Spenders, and a Plan to Stop them All

by Brian Czech

Americans have been conditioned to appreciate, cheer, and serve economic growth. Brian Czech argues that, while economic growth was a good thing for much of American history, somewhere along the way it turned bad, depleting resources, polluting the environment, and threatening posterity. Yet growth remains a top priority of the public and polity. In this revolutionary manifesto, Czech knocks economic growth off the pedestal of American ideology. Seeking nothing less than a fundamental change in public opinion, Czech makes a bold plea for castigating society’s biggest spenders and sets the stage for the "steady state revolution."

Czech offers a sophisticated yet accessible critique of the principles of economic growth theory and the fallacious extension of these principles into the "pop economics" of Julian Simon and others. He points with hope to the new discipline of ecological economics, which prescribes the steady state economy as a sustainable alternative to economic growth.

Czech explores the psychological underpinnings of our consumer culture by synthesizing theories of Charles Darwin, Thorstein Veblen, and Abraham Maslow. Speaking to ordinary American citizens, he urges us to recognize conspicuous consumers for who they are―bad citizens who are liquidating our grandkids’ future. Combining insights from economics, psychology, and ecology with a large dose of common sense, Czech drafts a blueprint for a more satisfying and sustainable society. His ideas reach deeply into our everyday lives as he asks us to re-examine our perspectives on everything from our shopping habits to romance.

From his perspective as a wildlife ecologist, Czech draws revealing parallels between the economy of nature and the human economy. His style is lively, easy to read, humorous, and bound to be controversial. Czech will provoke all of us to ask when we will stop the runaway train of economic growth. His book answers the question, "How do we do it?"

Genres: Economics, Environment, Nonfiction

222 pages, Paperback

First published August 6, 2000

Reviews

[Brett · Rating 2 out of 5]

For the first few chapters of this book, I thought I was going to really enjoy it. Czech takes on a difficult topic: the idea that economic growth, which has (rightly) been viewed as an unalloyed good throughout most of human history, may soon have to be re-evaluated. Converging ecological and population related crises may make it necessary to transition to an economy that consumes less energy and resources and puts more value on sustainability. Yet, the idea that economic growth may have downsides is not a viable political position at this time, so Czech is hoeing a difficult row in his rather radical proposition.

However, when the second half of the book starts, Czech goes way off the rails. It is unconscionably half-baked. Basically, the entirety of his "plan" is to somehow convince all of human society to spontaneously begin holding conspicuous consumers in contempt. The most salient (in Czech's view) result of this change in thinking is that women would no longer have sex with rich guys, thereby causing them to alter their behavior to consume less.

I wish I was kidding.

Oh, he tries to dress it up a little. He tries not to not make it totally gender specific, but it's pretty clear that he is mainly counting on hetero women to withhold sex. Honestly, when I first started to grasp what he was getting at, I thought it was some kind of weird throw away thought, but he just won't let it go for the entire last 100 pages of the (200 total page) book.

So, what began as a nice, vaguely philosophical musing on the nature of our economy turned into the most annoying diatribe that anyone might corner you with for hours at a party.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Problem identified; solution in doubt

It is a curiosity of modern economic thought that some people--Brian Czech identifies them as "neoclassical" economists, led in part by the late Julian Simon--think there is no end to economic growth. When I first became aware of this idea some years ago I dismissed it out of hand along with what I saw as a couple of similar delusions, that of perpetual population growth and an ever-increasing agricultural yield. But maybe the seemingly impossible is possible after all!

To get right to the heart of the matter--which Czech does after noting that economic growth is a national goal; that is, a political and (one might say) an emotional goal somewhat in the manner of "manifest destiny" from the nineteenth century--we need to ask why Simon (and other respected economists) think that such a fantastic thing as perpetual economic growth is possible.

First they start with "substitutability," the idea that when we run short of some resource another will be developed or otherwise come along to take the place of the now scare resource. Thus plastic replaces wood; coal will replace oil, wind power and mirrors in space will replace coal, and farmed fish will take the place of the wild variety. Second, there is the notion that the efficiency of engines and other technological developments will increase endlessly. And third, there is the relatively new idea of "human capital," a kind of fuzzy--one is tempted to say mystical--belief that human intelligence, education and knowledge will just keep right on growing and growing and growing, getting more and more from less and less.

Perhaps these guys never heard of entropy or diminishing returns--or they think that such things are so far in the future that they needn't be mentioned. I suppose somewhere along the way the neoclassicists do recognize that in the very long run even the universe will grow cold, and economic growth will become but a faint and very distant cosmic whisper.

What Czech observes, as he convincingly destroys Simon's perpetual growth arguments as Simon articulated them in The Ultimate Resources 2 (1996), is that "Eventually they will recharge their arguments...by resorting to the topic of space travel" (p. 44)--meaning that if we run out of resources on earth, we'll just go to the moon, to Mars, to Alpha Centauri!

So what Julian L. Simon and the others are really saying is not clear. What is clear is that they want no limits on economic growth, and they especially do not like to hear sob stories about what we are doing to the environment in pursuit of an ever expanding economy. But what Brian Czech does in this sprightly tome is throw a kind of Niagra Falls flood of water on America's love affair with what he calls "liquidation"--that is, the liquidation of natural capital for present consumption to the impoverishment of future generations.

As others have pointed out he does a good job of demolishing what he dubs "the Ptolemaic theory of perpetual economic growth" (p. 51) in favor of "a more Copernican economics...in which economic growth is limited." (p. 49) He calls this new paradigm, "steady state economics" or "ecological economics," in which the natural resources of the planet are not wantonly wasted and destroyed by greedy "liquidators" bent only on self-gratification and status display, but instead maintained by more frugal steady-staters seeking self-actualization as their primary goal in life. This recall of psychiatrist Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs fits right in with Czech's hope for a sustainable economy since self-actualization need not require more fuel than the planet has.

What Czech does not do well is convince this reader that his steady state plan has a snowball's chance in the boiler room of his runaway train of becoming the accepted paradigm before we use up most of the world's non-renewable resources. What with the acquisitive nature of the human animal (which Czech delineates very well in his portrait of the "Liquidating Class") and the need of corporations and government leaders to go from "ups to upper ups" economically-speaking (to recall Lucy's words in the Peanuts comic strip), there is little prospect that conservation-minded individuals will have enough influence to stop the train before it crashes.

What is terrible about this--and this is what Czech is warning us about--is that it will be our grandchildren who will pay the price as the rain forests turn to burgers and the ocean's fisheries to a whopping fish story in the memory of the last fisherman. What kind of world will it be? I don't think that the Bush administration and the present political leaders of most of the world really care. They see it as somebody else's problem downstream. Czech's optimism that the train can be stopped seems like so much whistling Dixie in the dark.

I think the deeper issue here is that of the capitalist/corporate economic system itself. Capitalism defeated communism, and we can say hurrah for that. But can a planet with finite resources survive an economic system that seems to function well only when it is spiraling upward? Since capitalism is the current paradigm, to suggest that it needs replacing amounts to something like blasphemy. Consequently Czech does not target capitalism per se. After all he has a career and a reputation to consider. However, I have neither to worry about, and I can say it: capitalism as an economic system is becoming a cancer on the planet. Perhaps the system that will replace it (still awaiting its genius) will build on Czech's steady state ideas.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beginning was slow and a little unorganized. The end was an unnecessarily long and not very realistic plan for reducing wasteful consumption of non-rewewable natural resources. However, a few of the middle chapters were a good introduction to ecological economics and the concept of a steady-state economy. Even though the book wasn't always convincing, it was nice to read a perspective on economics that isn't often presented in popular media. At less than 200 pages, it was a short read.

[Patrick Szalapski · Rating 3 out of 5]

I fundamentally disagree with the author's thesis, but I credit him for proposing a cultural and values-based solution and setting aside government enforcement as a viable first step.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A somewhat odd write up criticizing mainstream neoclassical economics and its focus on endless growth as a legitimate goal for society. Odd because it does not delve into numbers or facts as one would expect, but is predominantly written in a philosophical manner that borders on moralizing, especially in the latter half when the author proposes how we should start a social revolution by making excessive/conspicuous consumption socially unacceptable. He takes specific aim at growth proponent Julian Simon, devoting an entire chapter to critiquing his book and the supposedly fallacious arguments in it. I have not read Simon's work, but it seems a little off topic or at least excessive for the purposes of this book.

To conclude, this book spends too much time saying how wrong consumption is without sufficiently explaining why spending and investing money is. Even just leaving your savings in the bank is no good as bankers will make loans to growth hungry corporations with it. Of course, most people already know materialistic consumption is bad, but at least one should try writing more convincing arguments to sway the mainstream. Just repeating that it is wrong and urging people to castigate the wealthy will not work. As the author explains himself, the need to flaunt one's riches is biologically ingrained in all of us, as a way to move up socially. Tall order it is indeed to compel individuals to ignore this natural urge, with grim implications for humanity.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Marginally a 3 star selection. But three stars for having the right concern about the runaway train and for discussing the concept of ecological economics, which I believe is important. However, it seems unrealistic to me that simply making the excessive consumers feel guilty is a realistic solution.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author tends to misunderstand (or misrepresent) economic theory at times, but his point that ultimately economic growth has to conflict with environmental quality is true. The comfortable lifestyle we're accustomed to in the developed world is almost certainly unsustainable.

[Kelly]

julie mills thesis

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

First half was great, then it got a little too philosophical and winded in a section of the book that was supposed to be talking about solutions to current consumption issues.

[Brendan Chard]

Terrible.