现代大学英语精读第二版（第四册）学习笔记（原文及全文翻译）——8A - Economic Growth Is not equal to Prosperity（经济增长不一定通向繁荣之路）

Unit 8A - Economic Growth Is a Path to Perdition, Not Prosperity

Economic Growth Is a Path to Perdition, Not Prosperity

Wayne Ellwood

Charles Darwin was a rigorous, meticulous scientist. He spent nearly 20 years honing his analysis and polishing his prose before publishing his groundbreaking work, On the Origin of Species, in November 1859.

Darwin's slim volume was what we would call a "game changer," a revolutionary work that fundamentally altered the way human beings see themselves and the natural world. Today most of us are familiar with his theory of "natural selection"—the foundation of modern evolutionary biology. But 150 years ago, Darwin was sailing into choppy waters. The Church of England had set rigid boundaries, and his thesis was clearly a challenge to the orthodox view that humans were a separate, unique part of God's creation and that all life was divinely created and unchangeable.

The establishment of the time mocked him. There was intense public debate. But Darwin was unflinching. Today his core idea that all animals and plants evolve and adapt through natural selection is the bedrock of modern life sciences. He opened the door to a new world—a door which religious fundamentalists and "intelligent design" proponents are still trying to close.

Darwin's long battle has disturbing echoes today. We, too, are trapped in the same sort of false illusion that stymied critical thought before his radical breakthrough, except that the myth that envelops us is more dangerous and even more deeply rooted.

Our great sustaining myth is economic growth: faith that the economy can grow forever, that there are no limits to the wealth we can create from Earth's natural resources. Growth, measured by an increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is what drives government policy worldwide.

The equation has been drummed into us for so long that it's received wisdom. Growth equals prosperity and jobs. Growth equals progress.

Yet this is a relatively recent turn of events. Using the GDP as a tool to measure growth has only been around since the late 1940s when the UN System of National Accounts was developed. For most of human history, economic growth was a mere blip. Only the last eight generations of humans have experienced consistent growth. As the father of green economics, Herman Daly, points out: "Historically, steady state is the normal condition; growth is an aberration." By "steady state," Daly means an economy with a constant population and "the lowest feasible flows of matter and energy from the first stage of production to the last stage of consumption."

The latest global economic slump underlines our reliance on growth. What happens when the economy stumbles? Financial markets crash, property values plummet, bankruptcies pile up, unemployment soars, and social pathologies multiply. Thus the resurgence of Keynesian economics. Prime the pump with billions in government funds. Pray that tax breaks and fiscal stimulus will boost investment, production, and jobs.

Yet the world already produces far too much stuff, a lot of it unnecessary and much of it useless. We go on churning out mountains of consumer goods because it's good for growth. As long as the economy keeps growing, things will be okay. Growth keeps people employed, investment profitable, and the endless cycle of production and consumption spinning. Increases in productivity and the restless search for profits drive the process.

Endless accumulation and expansion is the core of capitalism.

Consider this: the world economy grew more than seven-fold from 1950 to 2000. It's projected to do the same again by 2050. At current rates of growth (before the recent global meltdown), the economy was doubling every 15 years, a breathtaking number when you consider that it took all of human history to reach the $6 trillion world economy of 1950.

As the US writers Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster note: "No-growth capitalism is an oxymoron: when growth ceases, the system is in a state of crisis." The upshot is that the natural environment, on which human life and the human economy depend, is sidelined—"not as a place with inherent boundaries within which human beings must live together with Earth's other species, but as a realm to be exploited in a process of growing economic expansion."

The uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is that the physical resources of the biosphere are finite. We're not approaching the ecological limits to growth; we're well past them. And in the process we are fouling the planet with our wastes and threatening the natural systems on which humanity and all other species depend.

The hard statistics of ecological decline could fill a library. We're chewing through massive quantities of both renewable and non-renewable resources at a breakneck speed.

In 2005, the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a collaborative work of more than 10,000 scientists, found that 60% of "ecosystem services"—things like climate regulation, the water cycle, pollination, global fisheries, natural waste treatment—were being degraded or used unsustainably. "Human activity is putting such a heavy strain on Earth's natural functions," the report warned, "that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain human endeavor can no longer be taken for granted."

The new familiar Ecological Footprint model supports this conclusion. It's a way of asking how much we're extracting from the planet to live the way we do. Conventional economics tends to see the environment as a subset of the economy. The footprint approach does the reverse, comparing humanity's ecological impact—resources consumed and waste produced—with the amount of productive land and water available to supply key ecosystem services. It deals in averages so the rich/poor divide is blurred. But the message is clear. It takes about 1.8 hectares to sustain the average person on Earth. Those of us in the rich world are way above the average: Canadians each use about eight hectares, and Americans use 10, more than five times the average.

In 1961, human beings used about half of Earth's biocapacity; by 2006 we were using 44% more than is available. Mathis Wackernagel, one of the founders of the ecological footprint system, says we will need the equivalent of two Earths by the late 2030s to keep up with our demands. Ecologists call this phenomenon "overshoot." It's a temporary state that becomes increasingly untenable as stocks of resources are depleted.

Wackernagel again says: "Since the 1980s, we've been drawing down the biosphere's principal rather than living off its annual interest. To support our consumption, we have been liquidating resource stocks and allowing carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere."

Oil is the main culprit. The burning of fossil fuels, especially petroleum, powers the global economy. Oil is an extraordinary feat of concentrated energy: three large teaspoons of crude contain about the same amount of energy as eight hours of human manual labor. Geologist Colin J. Campbell hit the nail on the head: "It's as if each one of us had a team of slaves working for us for next to nothing."

Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach; our modern globalized economy marches on oil. But it's a Faustian bargain. The costs now exceed the benefits. Take the climate system, a key "natural service" threatened by human-made greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2, the main by-product from the combustion of fossil fuels. The more oil and coal we burn, the more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere and the more we tip the balance.

Leading climate scientists say a target of 350 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 might avoid dangerous climate change. We're currently at 390 ppm and projected to hit 650 ppm by the end of this century. This translates into an average increase in global temperature of about 4°C. If this projection plays out, we're in big trouble. Large parts of Africa, China, India, and Latin America would become desert. Have you heard the term "environmental refugees"? Keep it in mind, because you're going to be hearing it a lot more in the years ahead.

Even on its own terms, growth isn't working. We avoid talking about the skewed distribution of the planet's wealth and income, dreaming instead that we can grow our way out of the problem. So the richest 20% of the world's population consumes the lion's share of resources, while the poorest 80% have to get by on the crumbs. And the ratios are getting worse. Growth is an excuse for continued inequality. But, more importantly, countless studies show that beyond a certain point higher levels of material consumption do not lead to increased well-being or happiness.

Per capita GDP has tripled in the United States since 1950, but the percentage of people who say they are happy has declined since the 1970s. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, in their book The Spirit Level, note that poor nations with lower inequality have higher levels of well-being than richer but more unequal nations. We place growth above equality and pay a price in what's called "the hidden injuries of class." Shorter, unhealthier, and unhappier lives addicted to a mindless consumerism that is depleting the planet's resources.

Free market cheerleaders believe that technology and human ingenuity will solve the problem. The economy can be "de-coupled" from material inputs, they claim, and improved technology will allow us to produce more wealth with less energy, materials, and waste. This is whistling in the dark. Between 1970 and 2000, rich countries saw impressive gains in energy efficiency of up to 40%; but average improvements of 2% a year were eclipsed by growth rates of 3% or more. Increased technical efficiency is swamped by increased consumption.

A recent report by the New Economics Foundation found that, to stabilize carbon emissions at 350 ppm by 2050, the carbon intensity of the global economy would need to fall by 95%. Ramping up GDP without improving technological efficiency leads to more environmental damage. Yet improving efficiency leads to more growth, which leads to the same result.

We've been captured by a myth far more alluring than the one that Charles Darwin confronted 150 years ago: the dream of perpetual economic growth. In the North we have been living beyond our ecological means for decades, consuming too much and producing more waste than the environment can absorb, while inequality grows.

The global population is expected to jump by 3 billion in the next 40 years—more than the entire population in 1950. Most of that increase will be in the South, where poverty is entrenched and living standards desperate. How will those next three billion live? Justice demands that we in the rich countries ratchet back our growth and clear some space for those who need it. The fate of planet Earth may depend on it.

Are we up to it?

The economy is a human construct. It's not an act of God. We made it, we can change it.

参考译文——经济增长是通向毁灭，而非通向繁荣之路

经济增长是通向毁灭，而非通向繁荣之路

韦恩•埃尔伍德

查尔斯•达尔文是一位治学严谨的科学家。他在1859年II月发表了开创性的巨著《物种起源》。在发表该书之前，他花了将近20年时间对他的分析进行推敲改进，并对文字进行反复润色。

达尔文这本薄薄的书是我们称之为“改变游戏规则的东西”，一部从根本上改变了人类看待自己和自然界的方式的革命性著作。今天，我们大多数人都熟悉他的“自然选择”理论——现代进化生物学的基础。但是在150年以前，达尔文可谓是驶入了波涛汹涌的水域。英国国教早已制定了严格的条条框框，而他的论点明显是对正统观点的挑战——教会的正统观点认为人类是由上帝创造的，独立于其他生物并且是独一无二的；同时，所有生命都是上帝创造的，是神圣而且不可改变的。

当时的当权者都嘲笑他。他的观点曾在公众中引发激烈的讨论。但是，达尔文丝毫没有畏惧。如今,他的核心观点——所有动物和植物都是在自然选择过程中进化并不断适应自然——已经成为现代生命科学的奠基石。他打开了通往一个新世界的大门——一扇宗教界的原教旨主义者和“智慧设计论”的倡导者们现在仍然试图关上的大门。

直到今天，达尔文那时的长期斗争还有令人不安的回响。和他一样，在实现彻底突破之前，我们一直被困在妨碍批判性思维的错觉和幻想里，只不过我们所陷入的幻想更加危险，而且更加根深蒂固。

我们心中持久不能摆脱的伟大幻想就是经济增长：我们相信经济将会永远增长下去，我们相信利用地球的自然资源能创造永无止境的财富。这种以不断提高的国内生产总值（GDP）为衡量标准的经济增长就是世界各国政府政策的决定性因素。

增长等于繁荣和就业，增长等于进步。这种等式关系被如此长久地灌输给人们，以至于成了人们的普遍信念。

然而，用GDP来作为衡最经济增长的手段还是相对较近的一种事态变化，仅仅从 20世纪40年代末才开始，那时联合国提出了国民经济核算体系。在人类历史的大部分时间里，经济增长只是昙花一现。只有在过去八代人的历史中，人类才经历了持续的经济增长。作为绿色经济之父，赫尔曼•戴利指出：“从历史上看，平稳是常态，而增长则是异常状态。”所谓“平稳”，戴利指的是在人口基数比较稳定的情况下“从第一阶段的生产到最后阶段的消费，这两个环节中间物质和能源的流动尽可能保持了最低的水平。”

最近的全球经济衰退突出表明了我们对经济增长的依赖。当经济停滞不前时会发生什么事情？那时，金融市场会崩溃，房地产价格会猛跌，企业破产会层出不穷，失业率会迅速攀升，各种社会弊病将会成倍增加。这样一来，凯恩斯经济学就会复兴，政府将投入几十亿资金来振兴经济，并希望通过减税和财政刺激手段来促进投资、生产和就业。

然而，现在这个世界已经生产了太多的东西，其中很多是不必要的，很多甚至毫无用处。我们不断粗制滥造大量的消费品，因为这有利于经济増长。而只要经济不断增长，一切就会顺畅。经济增长使人们就业得到保障，使投资获得盈利，使生产和消费无休止的循环得以保持。生产率的提高和对利润永不满足的追求推动了这一过程。

永不停止的积累和扩张乃是资本主义的核心。

让我们想想:从1950年到2000年，世界经济增长了7倍多。到2050年，预计它会再增长7倍。按照目前的增长速度(在最近的全球金融崩溃发生之前)，经济增长每隔15年就会翻一番。如果想想历史发展到1950年人类才使经济总量达到6万亿美元，你就会感叹如今的经济增长速度是多么的惊人。

正如美国作家弗雷德•马格多夫和约翰•贝拉木•福斯特所指出的：“没有增长的资本主义是个自相矛盾的说法：增长一旦停止，这个制度就会陷入危机。”其结果是人类生命和经济所依赖的自然环境被撇在一边—“不再是人类必须与地球上其他物种并存的天然区域，而成为人类在经济发展和经济扩张的过程中有待开发的领地。”

让人倍感不安并且能够引起麻烦的现实情况却是：生物圈内的物质资源是有限的。而我们现在不是在接近经济增长的生态极限，而是远远超过了这个极限。并且在这个过程中，我们一直在用各种废弃物污染这个星球，威胁着人类和所有其他物种所赖以生存的自然系统。

关于生态恶化的可靠统计数据多到几乎可以装满一个图书馆。我们正在以极其危险的速度吞噬着大量可再生和不可再生资源。

2005年，由一万多名科学家共同完成的《联合国千年生态系统评估报告》发现，有60%的 “生态系统服务”——诸如气候调节、水循环、授粉、全球渔业、自然界对废弃物的处理等等——都在退化或者没有被可持续地利用。这份报告警告说，“人类的活动现在给地球的自然功能施加了如此巨大的压力，以至于我们不能再理所当然地认为这个星球的生态系统会有能力维持人类的努力和奋斗。”

新的为人们所熟悉的“生态足迹”模型证实了这个结论。它让我们问自己（弄清楚)，保持现有的生活方式，我们到底在从地球上榨取多少资源。传统的经济学倾向于把环境看成是经济的一小部分。而“生态足迹”方法正好相反，它将人类对生态的影响——所消耗的资源和产生的废弃物——与现有的能提供关键生态系统服务的生产性土地和水的数量进行对比。它关注的是人均水平，因此贫富人群对资源需求量的差别就比较模糊，但是它所传递的信息很清楚。要维持地球上一个普通人的生命大概需要1.8公顷的土地。那些生活在富裕国家里的人，则大大超过平均水平：每个加拿大人大概需要8公顷，每个美国人则需要10公顷，超过平均水平的5倍以上。

1961年，人类已经消耗了地球大约一半的生态承载力；到2006年,我们消耗掉的生态承载力已超出地球总生态承载力的44%。“生态足迹”体系的创建者之一马西斯•瓦克纳格尔指出，到21世纪30年代后期，我们将需要相当于两个地球的生态承载力才能满足我们的需求。生态学家们把这种现象称之为“透支”。这是一种暂时的状况，然而，随着所存资源的不断减少，这种状况将日益变得难以为继。

瓦克纳格尔又指出：“从20世纪80年代起，我们一直在提取生物圈的老本，而不是依赖它每年的利息生存。为了支持我们的消费，我们一直在变卖储存的资源，听任二氧化碳在大气中不断积累。”

石油是罪魁祸首。化石燃料，尤其是石油的燃烧，驱动着全球经济的发展。石油是一种含有浓缩能量的神奇物质：三大汤匙的原油能够提供与8小时的人力劳动相等同的能量。地质学家科林·J.坎贝一针见血地指出:“这就好像我们每个人都有一群奴隶为我们干活一样，而且几乎不用花钱。”

拿破仑曾经说过，军队要填饱肚子才能前进。我们推动现代全球化经济发展则靠的是石油。但这是一种浮士德式的交易。现在，这笔交易的成本已经超过了收益。以气候系统为例—— 这是一项关键的“自然服务”，却受到人类制造的温室气体排放物的威胁。这些排放物中，大部分是二氧化碳，它是燃烧矿物燃料产生的主要副产品。我们燃烧的石油和煤越多，排放到大气里的二氧化碳也越多，生态平衡也就会遗到更严重的破坏。

世界上最杰出的气候科学家们说，如果二氧化碳在大气中的含量不超过百万分之350这—指标，就有可能避免危险的气候变化。但现在我们这一数字已经达到百万分之390, 而且预计到本世纪末会达到百万分之650。这将意味着全球温度将平均上升4℃。如果这个预计的情况成为现实，那我们就有大麻烦了。非洲、中国、印度和拉丁美洲的大部分地区都将变成沙漠。你们听说过“环境难民”这个词语吗？把它记在脑子里吧，因为你们在今后的岁月里将会频繁地听到这个词语。

就其本身来说，增长也并未起作用。我们总是避免谈论全球财富和收入分配的不平均和不合理，而是梦想着我们能够通过经济增长解决这些问题。所以世界最大份额的资源人口中最富有的20%的人消耗了最大份额的资源，而最贫穷的80%的人不得不靠剩下的少量资源凑合生活。这个分配比例正变得更糟糕。经济增长是贫富不均继续存在的原因。然而更为重要的是，无数研究表明，物质消费水平超过某一点以后，更高水平的消费并不能带来更多的安康和幸福。

自20世纪50年代以来，美国人均GDP已经增长了3倍，但是，自20世纪70年代起说自己幸福的人的比例却下降了。理查德•威尔金森和凯特•皮克特在他们的《精神水平》一书中指出：与贫富差距水平较高的富有国家相比，贫富差距水平较低的贫穷国家的人们的幸福指数更高。我们将经济增长凌驾于平等之上，结果造成所谓的“社会等级的隐性伤害"。人们的生命更短、生活更不健康、更不幸福，而且人们沉迷于盲目的消费主义之中，这种盲目的消费主义正在耗尽地球的资源。

自由市场的鼓吹者们认为，技术的进步和人类的聪明才智将会解决这个问题。他们扬言，经济能和物质投入分离开来，改进的技术将帮助我们用更少的能源和原料生产出更多的财富，并产生较少的废物。这种说法完全是在黑暗中吹口哨，自己给自己壮胆。1970年到2000年期间，富裕国家能源效率的增长惊人，高达40%；但是与每年3%甚至更高的经济增长速度的提高相比，平均每年2%的能源效率的提高则相形见绌。提高的技术效率被增加的消费吞没了。

新经济基金会最近的一份报告发现，要想在2050年前把碳排放量稳定在百万分之350，全球经济的碳强度必须降低95%。如果只增加GDP而不提高技术效率，就会造成更多的生态环境破坏。但是，如果提高了生产效率就会带来更高的经济增长，也会导致同样的结果。

比起150年前查尔斯•达尔文所面临的假象，我们所陷入的幻想更为诱人：经济永远增长的美梦。在北半球我们几十年来一直在超过生态承受能力的情况下过日子，消费过多, 生产大量生态环境无法吸收的废物。与此同时，贫富差距则日益严重。

据估计，全球的人口在今后40年内将猛增30亿——超过1950年的总人口数。大多数增加的人口将在南半球，而那里的贫困根深蒂固，人们的生活水平令人绝望。这即将来到世上的 30亿人将怎么生活呢？公平的原则要求我们这些生活在富裕国家的人抑制我们的经济增长，留出一些空间给那些需要的人。地球这个星球的命运可能就取决于此。

我们能够做到吗？

经济是人类创造的，它并非上帝所为。我们既然能创造它，我们一定也能改变它。

Key Words:

meticulous [mi'tikjuləs]

adj. 一丝不苟的，精确的

ecological [.ekə'lɔdʒikəl]

adj. 生态的，生态学的

desperate ['despərit]

adj. 绝望的，不顾一切的

参考资料：