Question

One of the greatest debates of the 21st century centers upon globalization and economic growth versus concerns for the natural environment. After diligent research of electronic sources, discuss the pros and cons of economic growth in terms of environmental concerns. Is economic growth a net benefit or loss for the natural environment? Is it sustainable? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer:-- The pros include a higher standard of living, increased longevity, and all the freedoms and choices modernization brings.

From an international trade standpoint, it opens up new markets for trade.

--

The cons, (most notably) include "creative destruction"--new technologies and industries make old skills obsolete. Loser can be compensated by policy, but often times such policies are non-existent. Innovation is progress, compensation is socialism (so the argument, which I disagree with, goes).

Environmental degradation is another big one--economic development generally comes at the expense of the environment.

There is also an argument that economic development comes at the cost of traditional culture (although this does not have to be true).

There are also a number of "first world" diseases--obesity, bulimia, depression. I would argue that the later (depression) certainly exists in less developed countries, but simply goes un-diagnosed (due to more pressing concerns, weak healthcare and mental healthcare systems).

International trade wise, economic development comes at the expense of "cheap labor", which could hurt certain industries (the positive side of this would be less outsourcing of work). Excuse me if I do not lament big-businesses that lose cheap labor sources.

Introduction

The relationship between economic growth, human well-being, and the achievement of a sustainable future has a long and complex intellectual history. In his 1910 book The Fight for Conservation, for example, the American conservationist Gifford Pinchot emphasized: the right of the present generation to use what it needs and all it needs of the natural resources now available [recognizing] equally our obligation so to use what we need that our descendents shall not be deprived of what they need.[1]

This language strikingly anticipates the seminal work of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which defined “sustainable development” as a process that “meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[2] This approach is strongly bottom-up—it suggests that a sustainable future will come into being if the biophysical and social conditions needed to support economic activity and human flourishing are maintained from each generation to the next. In addition, it emphasizes meeting needs rather than promoting growth or satisfying consumer preferences as the defining characteristic of “development.” Importantly, the WCED attaches a strong emphasis to issues of equity, especially the goal of alleviating poverty in settings and societies where people’s objective needs remain unmet.[3]

A contrasting perspective on the challenge of reconciling economic activity, social welfare, and the needs of future generations was put forward by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens, III, in their 1972 book, The Limits to Growth.[4]Based on a dynamic simulation model in which businesses and households make myopic decisions without regard for the long-run implications of short-run production and consumption, Meadows et al. predicted that natural resource depletion and environmental degradation would lead to an irreversible collapse of the global economy by the early twenty-first century. In this analysis, avoiding catastrophe would be possible if and only if:

Human fertility was limited to the replacement rate to stabilize population.
Natural resource use and pollution per unit of industrial output was cut by at least 75 percent.
Industrial production was stabilized at the level prevailing in the late twentieth century.
Goods and services were redistributed from the rich to the poor to provide a high quality of life for all members of the global community.

This vision is fascinating in multiple respects. It is simultaneously dystopian and utopian, presenting a narrative that combines an apocalyptic warning with the possibility of a type of secular renewal achieved through a process of personal and (especially) collective transformation. Like Pinchot and the WCED, this vision emphasizes the need to conserve natural resources and ecosystems as the foundation of a sustainable future, combined with the need to redistribute wealth to achieve equity in an ecologically limited world.