*Humanity has indeed been in a passive, fatalistic, indeed evolutionary, position hitherto, but we now have the brainpower to take control of our destiny (evolution)*

Humans are influenced by our evolutionary past and will be influenced
by evolution, regarding the future. That is why we remain a mountain
of contradicitions. No disrespect to you Squeers, but you claim
to be concerned about the planet and too much growth. Yet you
have 6 kids and a huge house. I doubt if lightning is going to
strike humanity and change much.

Fact is that we are heading for 9 billion, all wanting to live the
cushy lifestyle and AFAIK the planet can't handle it. So nature
will sort it out eventually.

*Why do we relegate human destiny to the vicissitudes of vicious competition?*

It doesent have to be vicious. It can be about comparative advantages.
It can be about cooperation. I have made far more money from setting
up win-wins, then from screwing anyone. But we need competition,
because people by nature act out of self interest and without it,
they become fat and lazy at others expense.

* Why do we allow our affairs to be dictated by a so-called free market, which is both loaded and indifferent to all appeals to humanity, sustainability or ethics?*

The market is no such thing. The market is simply about consumers
voting with their wallets. If enough people insist on sustainably
produced, ethical products, that is what producers will create.

Let me give you an example. If everyone bought only free range eggs,
that is all that would be produced.

You seem to think that we can change the nature of humanity on a
global scale. I happen to disagree with you and think that
humanity needs pain to learn, for its easier for many to simply
delude themselves about reality.

Talisman, capitalist economies have been around for a very long time, in many countries since way before continuous growth became a major factor.

While capitalists might desire growth and capitalism might encourage it, they haven’t always been able to get it. Capitalism hasn’t died out in places where supply and demand have been static.

Look at many small Australian towns. They’ve had no economic growth or even negative growth over the years and have retained healthy economies based directly on capitalism [see definition of capitalism on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ].

Also, the economic and population growth rate in Tasmania has been much less than in Queensland or Western Australia. But the quality of life there is not significantly different (apart from the weather!). The economy and the capitalistic regime on which it is based is just as healthy there as in high-growth states. In fact, if you delved right into it, you might well find that it is better than in Qld or WA.

I think that this notion that capitalist economies have got to have constant significant growth or else the economy and our quality of life will rapidly decline, is one of the greatest con jobs of all time!

Of course businesses want growth and will promote it vigorously. But governments are supposed to regulate this and not just pander to it. In fact, where growth pressure is significant, this has surely got to be one of the main roles of government. Alas, governments have gravely let us down in this regard.

The real problem with capitalism and growth is that governments the world over are in bed with big business and consist predominantly of people that have business and economic backgrounds who are all too often more interested in what they can get out of it than what is good for their country in the longer term. The result is that governments have just dismally failed to regulate growth.

The notion that capitalistic economies have to have constant growth is a total furphy. The problem lies with government.

Yabby:
none of your fatalism and rationalism is worthy a response.
I think it's worth seeing what human nature is or could be if it wasn't distorted from birth.

Ludwig,
capitalists do not "desire growth", they desire profit which, in our competitive system, entails growth.
In the real world, indeed in the "world-system", there is none of your romanticising of village economies. Your Australia towns are under the protection and maintenance of the Australian government and economy, or else they source their wealth from the crumbs of mining exports. They do not self-subsist. All the "real" world is subject to fundamentalist capitalism whose mantra is GROWTH (to begin with, how else do they pay of their staggering national debts?). Various nice little protectorates around the world are merely kidding themselves if they think they are independent of the world system, or would last a minute without powerful friends.
<I think that this notion that capitalist economies have got to have constant significant growth or else the economy and our quality of life will rapidly decline, is one of the greatest con jobs of all time!>
Think what you like, it's true of the present global system.
Australia's prosperity is born of luck and exploitation.
According to world-systems theory (very highly respected), "Among the most important structures of the current world-system is a power hierarchy
between core and periphery, in which powerful and wealthy "core" societies dominate
and exploit weak and poor peripheral societies."
Of course Yabby would heartily approve of this.
Have a read if you're interested, talisman:

http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/WorldSystem.pdf

Alright Squeers. Let’s say that you are right and capitalism is dependent on continuous growth.

What would you have us do?

You are apparently as concerned about never-ending growth and the rush towards the cliff as I am. My main subject on this forum is continuous population growth (and continuous economic growth, environmental alienation, resource stress and all the other things that are connected to it) and how we deal with it and head towards genuine sustainability.

It seems that you share my concerns but just put them in quite different terms. Am I right here?

So, you think that capitalism is a dead loss, predominantly because you believe that it won’t work without growth. You apparently condemn the notion of a steady-state economy.

So again, what do you think we should do??

Ludwig,
first of all, let's not confuse ideas with reality; you've done a little dreaming about sustainable capitalism but you haven't made any practical suggestions how this miracle will be accomplished. I don't "condemn the notion of a steady-state economy", but I don't believe capitalism, that is the competitive cultivation of profit and its retention in private hands, can ever accomplish that. Nor can it ever be sustainable; it would then cease to be capitalism (you can't imagine how deep the rabbit hole goes). I don't believe in fiscal competition or private wealth, period, which will always lead to power-elites and corruption. Indeed I don't believe in economic fundamentalism; that there is some economic operating system out there that if adhered to will be sustainable in perpetuity. Why have we handed over human destiny to some dismal rubric? The so-called science of "economics" is an abstraction, lending it bogus respectability; the originators of the idea called it "political economy" to reflect its "social" dynamic. "Economism" has been a disaster for Humanity and the planet. We have to learn to husband resources and tailor our development according to "material" and "ethical" contingencies. The first step is realising this is one planet with one human race; it is simply not acceptable that a tiny minority enjoys obscene wealth, or that one half lives in comparative affluence while the other half starves. It's not only because "I believe that it won’t work without growth" that I'm against capitalism, it's also because the whole production-line is demeaning of human potential.
There is no economic pill.
<what do you think we should do??>

To begin with, WAKE UP!!
Become politically active, but also cultivate your humanity.
It's ultimately out of the individual's hands, but individual lives can be inspiring.

Thanks Squeers.

I was actually thinking of Wallerstein when I made
my last post. Capitalism is indeed predicated on
continuous growth and has shown itself to be incapable
of reining in its excesses.

My own view is that we probably need something cataclysmic
like Peak Oil/Peak Energy to bring the whole house of cards down.
It's also likely to be the only thing that might ameliorate AGW.

Maybe once that happens people might try and devise a
truly sustainable World System that doesn't rape and pillage
the periphery for the benefit of the capitalist centre/s.