風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
這位先鋒經濟學家認為，我們對增長的癡迷必須終結
大衛·馬爾凱塞 2022年7月17日
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/18/magazine/herman-daly-interview.html
增長是主流經濟和政治思想的終極目標。有人告訴我們，如果GDP沒有持續增長，社會就會麵臨動蕩的風險，生活水平也會下降，進步的希望也會蕩然無存。
但另一種違反直覺的可能性呢？我們目前對增長的追求，盡管如此狂熱，並造成了如此巨大的生態破壞，其代價可能大於收益。這種可能性——優先考慮增長最終是一場必輸的遊戲——正是備受讚譽的經濟學家赫爾曼·戴利50多年來一直在探索的。通過這種方式，他提出了支持穩態經濟的論據，這種經濟摒棄了對增長永不滿足且破壞環境的渴望，認識到地球的物理局限性，轉而尋求可持續的經濟和生態平衡。“增長是我們現行體係的偶像，”戴利說道。他是馬裏蘭大學公共政策學院名譽教授，曾任世界銀行高級經濟學家，與格蕾塔·通貝裏和愛德華·斯諾登等人一起獲得了享有盛譽的“正確生活方式獎”（通常被稱為“另類諾貝爾獎”）。“每個政治家都支持增長，”84歲的戴利繼續說道，“沒有人反對增長，也沒有人支持穩態或趨於平穩。但我認為，這是一個基本的問題：增長是否會變得不經濟？”
你支持穩態經濟的基本論點背後有一個顯而易見的邏輯：經濟和地球上的其他一切一樣，都受製於物理限製和熱力學定律，因此不可能永遠增長。不那麽顯而易見的是，在一個經濟蛋糕停止增長的世界裏，我們的社會將如何運作。我曾聽過像彼得·泰爾這樣的人說過，沒有增長，我們最終會陷入暴力。在我看來，這暗示著對人類可能性的一種相當有限且悲觀的看法。你對人性以及我們願意和平分享蛋糕的看法，難道比他的觀點更樂觀嗎？首先，我並不反對財富增長。我認為富裕總比貧窮好。問題是，目前的實踐和衡量方式真的能增加財富嗎？它是否讓我們在總體上變得更富有，還是成本的增長速度快於收益的增長速度，從而讓我們變得更貧窮？主流經濟學家對此沒有任何答案。他們之所以沒有答案，是因為他們沒有衡量成本。他們隻衡量收益。GDP 就是收益。GDP 本身沒有任何減損。但自由意誌主義的理念合乎邏輯。如果你要成為自由意誌主義者，你就不能接受增長受限。但增長受限是存在的。我記得肯尼斯·博爾丁說過，道德有兩種。一種是英雄道德，一種是經濟道德。經濟道德說：等等，有收益也有成本。讓我們權衡一下。我們不想直接衝下懸崖。讓我們看看邊際。我們是變得更好了還是更糟了？英雄道德說：不計成本！全速前進！要麽現在就死，要麽現在就勝利！朝著增長的方向前進！我想，這表明了一種信念：如果我們現在製造了太多問題，未來會學會如何處理。
你有這種信念嗎？[笑] 不，我沒有。
曆史上，我們認為經濟增長會帶來更高的生活水平、更低的死亡率等等。那麽，難道我們沒有道德義務去追求它嗎？在生態經濟學中，我們試圖區分發展（development）和增長（growth）。當某種東西生長時，它通過物質的積累或同化而變得更大。當某種東西發展（development）時，它在質量上會變得更好。它不必變得更大。計算機就是一個例子。現在，你用計算機中少量的物質基礎就能進行大量的計算。這才是真正的發展。生活的藝術並不等同於“更多東西”。人們偶爾會瞥見這一點，然後我們又會陷入“更多、更多、更多”的泥潭。
但是，一個國家如何在不增加GDP的情況下繼續提高其生活水平？認為增長正在提高當今世界的生活水平是一個錯誤的假設，因為我們用GDP的增長來衡量增長。如果GDP增長了，這是否意味著我們的生活水平正在提高？我們說過確實如此，但我們忽略了提高GDP的所有成本。我們真的不知道標準是否真的在提高。如果扣除車禍、化學汙染、野火造成的傷亡以及過度增長帶來的許多其他成本，結果就完全不明朗了。我剛才說的對富裕國家來說尤其如此。當然，對其他一些正在為生存而掙紮的國家來說，
GDP增長必然會增加福利。他們需要經濟增長。這意味著富裕國家必須為貧困人口騰出生態空間，使他們能夠達到可接受的生活水平。這意味著要削減人均消費，避免將所有資源都用於瑣碎的消費。
赫爾曼·戴利，1969年，範德堡大學教師。摘自赫爾曼·戴利
您提到“騰出生態空間”，這讓我想起您關於世界如何從一個空曠的世界走向一個充滿的世界的論述。但我們如何知道我們的世界已經充滿，以及我們是否已經接近地球生態容量的極限？我所說的空曠世界，充滿了尚未開發的自然資源。我所說的充滿的世界，現在充滿了開發這些資源的人，而這個世界已經沒有了那些已經枯竭的資源和被汙染的空間。所以，問題在於，這個世界“空”了什麽，又“充滿”了什麽。它是否“空”了收益，又“充滿”了成本？還是充滿好處而毫無成本？這就涉及到關注增長成本的問題了。
我們在過去的經濟衰退或增長停滯時期所經曆的嚴重困難，難道不??預示著穩定狀態經濟會發生什麽嗎？增長型經濟無法增長是一場災難。穩定狀態經濟不增長卻取得成功，並非災難。這就像飛機和直升機的區別。飛機的設計目標是向前飛行。如果飛機必須靜止不動，它就會墜毀。而直升機的設計目標是靜止不動，就像蜂鳥一樣。所以，這是兩種不同設計的比較，其中一種設計的失敗並不意味著另一種設計的失敗或成功。但為了從我們目前的增長型經濟轉向穩定狀態經濟，就意味著一些重要的設計原則——一些基本設計的改變。
假設明天美國政府宣布承認生態平衡的必要性，並將不再強調增長。難道其他國家不必做出同樣的決定才能達到預期的生態效果嗎？這是一個非常棘手的問題。如果你試圖製定法律來計算你在美國生產的生態成本，然後與另一個不計算成本的國家建立貿易關係，那麽他們就擁有了競爭優勢。從長遠來看，他們可能會毀掉自己，但從短期來看，他們會以低於你的價格出售產品。這給自由貿易者帶來了巨大的問題，因為解決這個問題的答案是通過征收關稅來保護美國產業。我曾經傾向於建立一個全球政府。我不知道是什麽改變了我的想法。也許是在世界銀行待了六年，讓我覺得全球治理就像一個幻想。我認為你被困在民族國家裏了。但這是全球主義與國際主義的對抗。全球主義主張消除國家界限。讓我們建立一個我們在全球範圍內管理的全球體係。國際主義認為國家界限很重要，但並非最終目標。這正是布雷頓森林體係背後的理念。我們說過，我們身處一個相互依存的國家世界，這些國家本質上彼此獨立，但又努力合作。這就是我們目前所堅持的模式。因此，最好的前進之路是各國努力走向穩定狀態，接受需要征收一定關稅的現實，並希望由此產生的利益足以說服其他國家效仿。
你所說的很多內容都與讓人類——從個人到企業再到政府——接受“足夠”的理念，並認為限製追求“更多”的能力是一件好事有關。這些理念與現代西方社會，尤其是某些自由觀念格格不入。那麽，什麽樣的轉折點或機製能夠讓人們擺脫這種“更多”的思維模式呢？那麽，你如何設想一個成功的穩定經濟？首先，回過頭來說，你如何設想一個成功的穩定地球？這個問題比較簡單，因為我們生活在一個穩定地球裏。地球並沒有膨脹。我們沒有獲得新材料，也沒有向太空出口物資。所以地球處於穩定狀態，如果你沒有意識到這一點，那麽，教育就會有問題。但話說回來，英雄倫理和經濟倫理也很重要。也許英雄倫理是正確的，但宗教的忠告是關注成本。不要讓人們的境況變得更糟。
戴利（左三）與1996年在斯德哥爾摩獲得“正確生活方式獎”的其他獲獎者合影。Eric Roxfelt/美聯社
你的宗教信仰會影響你的經濟理念嗎？我先從這個問題的第二部分開始。當你學習經濟學時，你會考察目的和手段之間的關係。你想要分配你的手段，以最大限度地滿足你的目的。但是
傳統經濟學始於我所說的中間手段和中間目的。我們的中間目的可能是良好的飲食、教育、一定程度的閑暇、健康——財富帶來的益處。我們將我們的手段用於這些中間目的。我們的中間手段是我們能夠生產的商品：食品、工業品、教育。經濟學正在從有限的中間手段走向經濟學認為無限的中間目的。我認為，我們不應該隻談論中間手段。我們應該問一問我們的最終手段是什麽。為了滿足我們的目的，什麽是必需的，而我們自己無法製造，隻能接受的？這樣一個大問題有答案嗎？我認為是有的。我從我的老教授喬治斯庫-羅根那裏學到，答案是物質和低熵能量。你需要物質和能量來實現你的物理目的。但熱力學第一定律指出，物質和能量既不能被毀滅也不能被創造。你可以改變它們的形式，所有過程都會將這種形式從低熵的有用能量轉變為高熵的無用能量。我們的最終手段受熵定律的約束。但最終目的是否存在呢？這個問題很難回答。
你能幫我試試嗎？我想我們都處於必須自己嚐試回答這個問題的境地。但我可以排除目前的答案，即增長是最終目的。現在，你也可以說精神上的提升才是最終目的。這會引出一些基本的宗教問題：生命的意義是什麽？我從哪裏來？我死後會發生什麽？這些問題過去常常被人們視為根本問題。現在，它們變得邊緣化，不科學。我對當今經濟學的批評是，它過於唯物主義，因為它沒有考慮最終目的和中間目的之間的關係。同時，經濟學也不夠唯物主義，因為它也拒絕探討最終手段。它沒有探究世界、物質和能量的熵性本質的根本極限，以及如何適應這些物理極限。
讓我先暫時停留在終極目標上。你認為生命的意義是什麽？每個人都有自己的答案，即使隻是為了開個玩笑，但我是基督徒。我確實認為存在一位造物主。我不認為你可以說生命是一場意外，而這恰恰是科學唯物主義所說的。新達爾文主義長期以來在哲學上搭了便車。當你計算所有這些無限小概率事件同時發生並產生生命的複合概率時，它就變得相當荒謬了。新達爾文主義者會說：“是的，我們接受這一點，這是數學。??” 生命在我們的宇宙中偶然起源是完全不可能的。“但我們有無數個未被觀測到的宇宙！” 無數個未被觀測到的宇宙？“從數學上講，這可能發生！” 而我們的宇宙是幸運的？他們鄙視那些聲稱存在造物主的宗教人士：這是不科學的。科學觀點是什麽？我們贏了宇宙彩票。拜托。
你花了一生的時間理性而勤奮地為自己的想法辯護，而且關於單純以增長為基礎的經濟替代方案的討論也正在進行。但增長仍然是王道。這難道不令人失望嗎？我的職責是盡我所能，提出一些想法。我種下的種子是否會生長，不取決於我。我隻取決於我如何播種和澆水。當然，我不認為最終的倫理要求是焚燒地球，所以我樂於看到生態經濟學和穩態經濟學的理念不斷進步。但你問的是失望。我收到很多批評，比如“我不喜歡這樣；這不現實”。我沒有收到更理性的批評，比如“你的預設是錯誤的”或“你推理的邏輯是錯誤的”。這令人失望。 Georgescu-Roegen 提出了許多相同的論點，但他也完全被忽視了。他本人對數理經濟學做出了其他貢獻，這些貢獻本應為他那些更激進的想法提供可信度，但事實並非如此。我缺乏獨立思考的能力，因此更不可能被認真對待。但意想不到的事情確實會發生。
本次采訪根據兩次對話進行了編輯和精簡。
開篇插圖：馬裏蘭大學照片
David Marchese 是本雜誌的特約撰稿人，也是《Talk》雜誌的專欄作家。最近，他采訪了 Neal Stephenson，探討如何描繪烏托邦式的未來；采訪了 Laurie Santos，探討了幸福；采訪了 Christopher Walken，探討了表演。
This Pioneering Economist Says Our Obsession With Growth Must End
By David Marchese July 17, 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/18/magazine/herman-daly-interview.html
Herman Daly (1938 – 2022), a world-renowned ecological economist and University of Maryland School of Public Policy professor emeritus, died October 28.
Growth is the be-all and end-all of mainstream economic and political thinking. Without a continually rising G.D.P., we’re told, we risk social instability, declining standards of living and pretty much any hope of progress. But what about the counterintuitive possibility that our current pursuit of growth, rabid as it is and causing such great ecological harm, might be incurring more costs than gains? That possibility — that prioritizing growth is ultimately a losing game — is one that the lauded economist Herman Daly has been exploring for more than 50 years. In so doing, he has developed arguments in favor of a steady-state economy, one that forgoes the insatiable and environmentally destructive hunger for growth, recognizes the physical limitations of our planet and instead seeks a sustainable economic and ecological equilibrium. “Growth is an idol of our present system,” says Daly, emeritus professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, a former senior economist for the World Bank and, along with the likes of Greta Thunberg and Edward Snowden, a recipient of the prestigious Right Livelihood Award (often called the “alternative Nobel”). “Every politician is in favor of growth,” Daly, who is 84, continues, “and no one speaks against growth or in favor of steady state or leveling off. But I think it’s an elementary question to ask: Does growth ever become uneconomic?”
There’s an obvious logic to your fundamental argument in favor of a steady-state economy, which is that the economy, like everything else on the planet, is subject to physical limitations and the laws of thermodynamics and as such can’t be expected to grow forever. What’s less obvious is how our society would function in a world where the economic pie stops growing. I’ve seen people like Peter Thiel, for example, say that without growth we would ultimately descend into violence. To me that suggests a fairly limited and grim view of human possibility. Is your view of human nature and our willingness to peacefully share the pie just more hopeful than his? First, I’m not against growth of wealth. I think it’s better to be richer than to be poorer. The question is, Does growth, as currently practiced and measured, really increase wealth? Is it making us richer in any aggregate sense, or might it be increasing costs faster than benefits and making us poorer? Mainstream economists don’t have any answer to that. The reason they don’t have any answer to that is that they don’t measure costs. They only measure benefits. That’s what G.D.P. is. There’s nothing subtracted from G.D.P. But the libertarian notion is logical. If you’re going to be a libertarian, then you can’t accept limits to growth. But limits to growth are there. I recall that Kenneth Boulding said there are two kinds of ethics. There’s a heroic ethic and then there’s an economic ethic. The economic ethic says: Wait a minute, there’s benefits and costs. Let’s weigh the two. We don’t want to charge right over the cliff. Let’s look at the margin. Are we getting better off or worse? The heroic ethic says: Hang the cost! Full speed ahead! Death or victory right now! Forward into growth! I guess that shows a faith that if we create too many problems in the present, the future will learn how to deal with it.
Do you have that faith? [Laughs.] No, I don’t.
Historically we think that economic growth leads to higher standards of living, lower death rates and so on. So don’t we have a moral obligation to pursue it? In ecological economics, we’ve tried to make a distinction between development and growth. When something grows, it gets bigger physically by accretion or assimilation of material. When something develops, it gets better in a qualitative sense. It doesn’t have to get bigger. An example of that is computers. You can do fantastic computations now with a small material base in the computer. That’s real development. And the art of living is not synonymous with “more stuff.” People occasionally glimpse this, and then we fall back into more, more, more.
But how would a country continue to raise its standard of living without growing its G.D.P.? It’s a false assumption to say that growth is increasing the standard of living in the present world because we measure growth as growth in G.D.P. If it goes up, does that mean we’re increasing standard of living? We’ve said that it does, but we’ve left out all the costs of increasing G.D.P. We really don’t know that the standard is going up. If you subtract for the deaths and injuries caused by automobile accidents, chemical pollution, wildfires and many other costs induced by excessive growth, it’s not clear at all. Now what I just said is most true for richer countries. Certainly for some other country that’s struggling for subsistence then, by all means, G.D.P. growth increases welfare. They need economic growth. That means that the wealthy part of the world has to make ecological room for the poor to catch up to an acceptable standard of living. That means cutting back on per capita consumption, that we don’t hog all the resources for trivial consumption.
You said “make ecological room,” which brings to mind the arguments you’ve made about how we’ve moved from an empty world to a full one. But how do we know that our world is full and that we’re operating near the limits of the planet’s ecological capacity? What I call the empty world was full of natural resources that had not been exploited. What I call the full world is now full of people that exploit those resources, and it is empty of the resources that have been depleted and the spaces that have been polluted. So it’s a question of empty of what and full of what. Is it empty of benefits and full of cost? Or full of benefits and empty of cost? That gets to that point of paying attention to the costs of growth.
Aren’t the serious difficulties that we’ve seen during past recessions or periods of stagnant growth indicative of what would happen in a steady-state economy? The failure of a growth economy to grow is a disaster. The success of a steady-state economy not to grow is not a disaster. It’s like the difference between an airplane and a helicopter. An airplane is designed for forward motion. If an airplane has to stand still, it’ll crash. A helicopter is designed to stand still, like a hummingbird. So it’s a comparison between two different designs, and the failure of one does not imply the failure or success of the other. But in order to move from our present growth economy to a steady-state economy, that’s going to imply some important design principles — some changes in the fundamental design.
Let’s say that tomorrow the United States government says it recognizes the need for ecological balance and is going to de-emphasize growth. Wouldn’t every other country have to make the same decision for it to have the desired ecological effect? That’s a very difficult question. If you try to enact laws for counting the ecological costs of your production in the United States and then you enter into trading relations with another country that does not count the costs, they have a competitive advantage. They may ruin themselves in the long run, but in the short run they’re going to undersell you. This creates huge problems for the free traders because the answer to the problem is to have a tariff to protect the U.S. industry. At one time I would have tended to favor moving toward a global government. I don’t know what changed my mind. Perhaps spending six years at the World Bank made me think that global governance looks like a chimera. I think you’re stuck with nation-states. But this is globalism versus internationalism. Globalism says to erase national boundaries. Let’s have one global system that we manage globally. Internationalism says national boundaries are important, but they’re not the ultimate thing. This was the philosophy behind the Bretton Woods agreements. We said we have a world of interdependent nations, which are fundamentally separate but try to be cooperative. That’s the model that we’re stuck with. So the best road forward is for nations to try to move toward a steady state and accept the fact that you’re going to need to have some tariffs and hope that the resulting benefits are sufficient to convince other nations to follow suit.
A lot of what you’re talking about has to do with getting humanity — from individuals to corporations to governments — to accept the idea of having “enough” and that constraining the ability to pursue “more” is a good thing. Those ideas are basically anathema to modern Western society and, especially, certain notions of liberty. So what would the inflection point or mechanism be that might move people away from that mind-set of “more”? So, how do you envision a successful steady-state economy? First, back up and say, How do you envision a successful steady-state Earth? That question is easier because we live in one. Earth is not expanding. We don’t get new materials, and we don’t export stuff to space. So you have a steady-state Earth, and if you don’t recognize that, well, there’s an education problem. But again, there’s this heroic ethic and economic ethic. Maybe the heroic ethic is the right one, but religion’s counsel is to pay attention to the cost. Don’t make people worse off.
Do your religious beliefs influence your economic ideas? I’ll start with the second part of that question. When you study economics, you’re looking at the relationship between ends and means. You want to allocate your means so as to maximally satisfy your ends. But traditionally economics has begun with what I would call intermediate means and intermediate ends. Our intermediate ends might be a good diet, education, a certain amount of leisure, health — the benefits of wealth. We dedicate our means toward these intermediate ends. Our intermediate means are commodities that we’re able to produce: food and industrial goods, education. Economics is going from intermediate means, which are limited, to intermediate ends, which economics says are unlimited. I say, let’s not just talk about intermediate means. Let’s ask what our ultimate means are. What is necessary to satisfy our ends and which we ourselves cannot make but must take as given? Is there an answer to such a big question? I think there is. I learned from my old professor Georgescu-Roegen that it’s matter and low-entropy energy. You need matter and energy to accomplish your physical ends. But the first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can never be destroyed or created. You can change its form, and all processes change that form from low-entropy, useful energy to high-entropy, useless energy. Our ultimate means are constrained by the entropy law. But is there an ultimate end? That’s harder to answer.
Can you give it a shot for me? I think we’re all in the position where we have to try to answer it for ourselves. But I can rule out the current answer, which is that growth is the ultimate end. Now, instead of that you could say spiritual improvement is the ultimate end. That gets you into fundamental religious questions: What is the meaning of life? Where did I come from? What’s going to happen when I die? These are questions people used to think of as fundamental. Now they’re marginal, unscientific. My critique of economics as it exists today would be that it is too materialistic because it does not consider the relationship between the ultimate ends and the intermediate ends. At the same time, economics is not materialistic enough because it also refuses to deal with the ultimate means. It doesn’t ask questions about the fundamental limits of the entropic nature of the world, of matter and energy and adapting to these physical limits.
Let me stick with ultimate ends for a second. What do you think the meaning of life is? Everyone has an answer to that, even if it’s just to punt, but I’m a Christian. I do think there’s a creator. I don’t think that you can say life is an accident, which is really what scientific materialism says. Neo-Darwinism has gotten a free ride philosophically for a long time. When you calculate the compound probability of all these infinitesimally probable events happening at once to generate life, it becomes quite absurd. The Neo-Darwinist types say, “Yes, we accept that, that’s mathematics.” It’s totally improbable that life should have originated by chance in our universe. “But we have infinitely many unobserved universes!” Infinitely many universes, unobserved? “Mathematically it could have happened!” And our universe is the lucky one? They look down their noses at religious people who say there’s a creator: That’s unscientific. What’s the scientific view? We won the cosmic lottery. Come on.
You’ve spent a lifetime arguing rationally and diligently for your ideas, and there is real discussion happening about alternatives to an economy predicated solely on growth. But growth is still king. Is that at all disappointing? My duty is to do the best I can and put out some ideas. Whether the seed that I plant is going to grow is not up to me. It’s just up to me to plant it and water it. Of course, I don’t think burning the world is ethically mandated by the ultimate end, so I like to see the ideas of ecological and steady-state economics move forward. But you’re asking about disappointment. I get a lot of criticism in the sense of “I don’t like that; that’s unrealistic.” I don’t get criticism in the more rational sense of “Your presuppositions are wrong” or “The logic which you reason from is wrong.” That is a disappointment. Georgescu-Roegen made many of the same arguments, and he was also completely ignored. In his case he had made other contributions to mathematical economics, which should have given credibility to his more radical ideas but didn’t. I lacked that independent thing, so it’s even more unlikely I would be taken seriously. But unlikely things do happen.
This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.
Opening illustration: Source photograph from University of Maryland
David Marchese is a staff writer for the magazine and the columnist for Talk. Recently he interviewed Neal Stephenson about portraying a utopian future, Laurie Santos about happiness and Christopher Walken about acting.
