What do you think?
Rate this book
A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies
A Prosperous Way Down (2001), the last book by Howard T. and Elisabeth C. Odum, has shaped politics and planning as nations, states, and localities begin the search for ways to adapt to a future with vastly increased competition for energy. A Prosperous Way Down considers ways in which a future with less fossil fuel could be peaceful and prosperous. Although history records the collapse of countless civilizations, some societies and ecosystems have managed to descend in orderly stages, reducing demands and selecting and saving what is most important. The authors make recommendations for a more equitable and cooperative world society, with specific suggestions based on their evaluations of trends in global population, wealth distribution, energy sources, conservation, urban development, capitalism and international trade, information technology, and education. Available for the first time in paperback, this thoughtful, provocative book forces us to confront assumptions about our world 's future and provides both a steadying hand and a call to action with its pragmatic analysis of a global transition.
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 13, 2021
This is a book in the tradition of "limits to growth" and, to a certain extent, of ecological economics. It presupposes that resources are shrinking; the earth is finite and therefore so is the economy which relies on the earth. The economy --- to be sustainable --- must get smaller as well, and the authors want to show how this transition might be made while maintaining prosperity.
So far, so good, and I agree. The main problem is that the authors do not present real arguments or consider contrasting points of view compatible with the overall perspective of limits to growth. The authors make some good points, but don't explain them or argue for them.
For example, the book doesn't consider the livestock industry. If you want a smaller economy, just shut down the livestock industry. That'll make it a lot smaller, hugely decreasing land use, and actually improving the health of the planet's citizens. The authors seem to be oblivious to the whole problem of livestock agriculture, one of the most wasteful and destructive industries on the planet. It's not that the authors argue in favor of livestock; it's that they don't even seem to be aware that this is, or should be, an issue. The authors evidently accept livestock as inevitable, though you only see this in casual references, such as listing as the very first use of stored water, as needed for "cattle" (p. 229).
The same thing is true for many other issues. The book is good in that it provides some useful ideas about degrowth, but doesn't really develop them or argue for them. (For a more systematic approach to degrowth, see the writings of Herman Daly or others in the school of ecological economics.) The book doesn't really help either on the points (most of them) where I agree with the authors, and it is downright infuriating when you get to the points (fewer in number, but still significant) where I disagree.
Examples! Let's look at p. 207, Table 13-2, "Guidelines for Orderly Descent." Much of it contains good general advice, such as "make beneficial descent the collective purpose of the century," "accept a small decline in empower use," and "develop economic incentives for reducing consumption." But I also run into this (p. 192): "Part time work of elders at reduced wage rates can replace the system of early retirement."
Wait a minute, that's ME. Uh, I don't think so. You reward a lifetime of service by cutting their wages and making them work until they die? This is cruel and will not go over well, even in a "degrowth" environment. The social pain of any reduction in the size of the economy needs to be mostly at the expense of the rich, not at the expense of the workers. People are not going to accept degrowth if the difficulties are not shared equally. They will be up in arms, and the whole society will collapse in conflict.
We also have this (back to p. 207): "Reduce salaries and wages as necessary to maintain full employment" Excuse me? This is essentially an austerity program for the benefit of businesses, which now have a license to reduce wages in the name of "the environment." Now, the book is beginning to move in the direction of eco-fascism.
And do we even want full employment? Doesn't this need to be discussed? If you have full employment, then people are going to be doing, what exactly? They will be making something or providing a service. Either way, this will tend to expand the economy and consume resources. This is exactly the opposite of what you want, unless this is "busywork" --- in which case it is pointless and will just make the workers mad, hardly conducive to social harmony.
Full employment with reduced wages will also promote the continuation of businesses we'd really rather see out of business, like those employing workers at low wages --- fast food operations and slaughterhouse operations. You could offset these blatantly anti-worker policies with other economic policies (business or luxury taxes), but at this point it sounds like they're unconsciously promoting eco-fascism, and I'm having to help the authors out by figuring out how to implement their program on my own in a more humane way.
I'd ask the authors (who are, alas, gone now): what's wrong with a basic income? It is better to have people idle, than to have them working at something that increases resource consumption. And staying busy is a basic human instinct. People on a basic income generally keep working, and those who do quit their jobs usually are taking care of the kids or trying to improve their abilities through going back to school. The authors need to provide an argument or an explanation of some sort, which they don't do.
The authors mention, but seem to be largely oblivious to, livestock agriculture and biodiversity issues. Yes, we need a decline in population, but what about a decline in livestock? The biomass of livestock far, far exceeds both the biomass of humans and the biomass of wild megafauna. You need to work on getting rid of livestock if you really want a "prosperous way down."
There is no discussion of cultural or ethical issues. I mean, should we be destroying the earth, torturing and killing billions of innocent animals, burning up all the resources, and eliminating all the wildlife? Shouldn't we have new ethical systems or cultural norms that would preclude this sort of thing right at the outset?
They do introduce one new useful concept, "emergy," which is like "energy" but also includes embodied energy. If we import stuff from China, we may not be expending that much energy; but the goods that we buy required energy to build and therefore contain quite a bit of "embodied energy" and therefore "emergy." However, while this book is definitely worth taking a look at, it is hard either to recommend to others, or to really take seriously oneself.
So far, so good, and I agree. The main problem is that the authors do not present real arguments or consider contrasting points of view compatible with the overall perspective of limits to growth. The authors make some good points, but don't explain them or argue for them.
For example, the book doesn't consider the livestock industry. If you want a smaller economy, just shut down the livestock industry. That'll make it a lot smaller, hugely decreasing land use, and actually improving the health of the planet's citizens. The authors seem to be oblivious to the whole problem of livestock agriculture, one of the most wasteful and destructive industries on the planet. It's not that the authors argue in favor of livestock; it's that they don't even seem to be aware that this is, or should be, an issue. The authors evidently accept livestock as inevitable, though you only see this in casual references, such as listing as the very first use of stored water, as needed for "cattle" (p. 229).
The same thing is true for many other issues. The book is good in that it provides some useful ideas about degrowth, but doesn't really develop them or argue for them. (For a more systematic approach to degrowth, see the writings of Herman Daly or others in the school of ecological economics.) The book doesn't really help either on the points (most of them) where I agree with the authors, and it is downright infuriating when you get to the points (fewer in number, but still significant) where I disagree.
Examples! Let's look at p. 207, Table 13-2, "Guidelines for Orderly Descent." Much of it contains good general advice, such as "make beneficial descent the collective purpose of the century," "accept a small decline in empower use," and "develop economic incentives for reducing consumption." But I also run into this (p. 192): "Part time work of elders at reduced wage rates can replace the system of early retirement."
Wait a minute, that's ME. Uh, I don't think so. You reward a lifetime of service by cutting their wages and making them work until they die? This is cruel and will not go over well, even in a "degrowth" environment. The social pain of any reduction in the size of the economy needs to be mostly at the expense of the rich, not at the expense of the workers. People are not going to accept degrowth if the difficulties are not shared equally. They will be up in arms, and the whole society will collapse in conflict.
We also have this (back to p. 207): "Reduce salaries and wages as necessary to maintain full employment" Excuse me? This is essentially an austerity program for the benefit of businesses, which now have a license to reduce wages in the name of "the environment." Now, the book is beginning to move in the direction of eco-fascism.
And do we even want full employment? Doesn't this need to be discussed? If you have full employment, then people are going to be doing, what exactly? They will be making something or providing a service. Either way, this will tend to expand the economy and consume resources. This is exactly the opposite of what you want, unless this is "busywork" --- in which case it is pointless and will just make the workers mad, hardly conducive to social harmony.
Full employment with reduced wages will also promote the continuation of businesses we'd really rather see out of business, like those employing workers at low wages --- fast food operations and slaughterhouse operations. You could offset these blatantly anti-worker policies with other economic policies (business or luxury taxes), but at this point it sounds like they're unconsciously promoting eco-fascism, and I'm having to help the authors out by figuring out how to implement their program on my own in a more humane way.
I'd ask the authors (who are, alas, gone now): what's wrong with a basic income? It is better to have people idle, than to have them working at something that increases resource consumption. And staying busy is a basic human instinct. People on a basic income generally keep working, and those who do quit their jobs usually are taking care of the kids or trying to improve their abilities through going back to school. The authors need to provide an argument or an explanation of some sort, which they don't do.
The authors mention, but seem to be largely oblivious to, livestock agriculture and biodiversity issues. Yes, we need a decline in population, but what about a decline in livestock? The biomass of livestock far, far exceeds both the biomass of humans and the biomass of wild megafauna. You need to work on getting rid of livestock if you really want a "prosperous way down."
There is no discussion of cultural or ethical issues. I mean, should we be destroying the earth, torturing and killing billions of innocent animals, burning up all the resources, and eliminating all the wildlife? Shouldn't we have new ethical systems or cultural norms that would preclude this sort of thing right at the outset?
They do introduce one new useful concept, "emergy," which is like "energy" but also includes embodied energy. If we import stuff from China, we may not be expending that much energy; but the goods that we buy required energy to build and therefore contain quite a bit of "embodied energy" and therefore "emergy." However, while this book is definitely worth taking a look at, it is hard either to recommend to others, or to really take seriously oneself.
November 27, 2012
Insightful evaluation of scientific principles and economics. Yet, these authors propagate an ethnocentric outlook for the future.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews