Hardcover, 261 pages
English language
Published March 6, 2007 by Times Books.
Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future is a non-fiction work by environmentalist Bill McKibben published in the field of ecological economics in 2007. The work promoted sustainable economy in close-knit communities. These include regions that generate their own food, their own energy, their own culture, and their own entertainment. McKibben defined a "deep economy" as one that "cares less about quantity than about quality; that takes as its goal the production of human satisfaction as much as surplus material; that is focused on the idea that it might endure and considers durability at least as important as increases in size." The book has been generally well-received, though some critics have questioned his proposed solutions.
A bit aged at this point with some of the examples listed, but there is so much goodness in this book. Highly recommended for people who want a better understanding of how More and Good are not always the same
This is a wonderful book. McKibben is a superb writer. He questions the logic and purpose of the growth economy and offers a superior set of ideals to seek instead. The book is in the tradition of Thoreau, but updated and more attuned to the pragmatic details of changing the course of our culture from an unsustainable path to one that is durable, authentic and centered on human well being.
Bill McKibben says the growth-obsessed economic dogma is due to be overthrown. It’s succeeding in creating wealth at the large scale, but it’s not enriching most people. It’s dependent on the lucky accident of vast supplies of cheap fossil fuels. And it's good at pulling people out of poverty, but after that its benefits level off and then diminish.
"Deep Economy" makes this case, and examines what a better model might look like.
McKibben’s a good writer and an energetic reporter ("Deep Economy" hops with him to such far-flung places as Yiwu, China; Curitiba, Brazil; Reykjavík, Iceland; and Gorasin, Bangladesh).
His story of peak oil, global warming, local eating, big box bashing, alternative energy boosting, and the like covers bases that ought to be familiar to anyone who keeps up with ideological fashion. But he avoids the clichés and (mostly) avoids the sloppy thinking that often makes such arguments unpersuasive. …
Bill McKibben says the growth-obsessed economic dogma is due to be overthrown. It’s succeeding in creating wealth at the large scale, but it’s not enriching most people. It’s dependent on the lucky accident of vast supplies of cheap fossil fuels. And it's good at pulling people out of poverty, but after that its benefits level off and then diminish.
"Deep Economy" makes this case, and examines what a better model might look like.
McKibben’s a good writer and an energetic reporter ("Deep Economy" hops with him to such far-flung places as Yiwu, China; Curitiba, Brazil; Reykjavík, Iceland; and Gorasin, Bangladesh).
His story of peak oil, global warming, local eating, big box bashing, alternative energy boosting, and the like covers bases that ought to be familiar to anyone who keeps up with ideological fashion. But he avoids the clichés and (mostly) avoids the sloppy thinking that often makes such arguments unpersuasive.
The current big agricultural model — massive farms with much of the labor replaced by machines, pesticides, and fertilizers, and with products produced in centralized operations and shipped globally — is magnificently efficient only if there’s plenty of cheap petroleum. Without that, it falls apart: the machinery, pesticides, and fertilizers no longer are cheaper than the labor they replace and the shipping costs overwhelm the economy of scale.
The American hyperconsuming lifestyle is fun — but it’s hard to argue that the Earth can support China and India adopting it too.
The alternative is a happy medium at which the poor emerge from chronic need and the rich take stock of their good fortune and step off of the treadmill.
Between 1969 and 2000, U.S. labor productivity increased by 80%. Why didn’t we decrease our hours worked, maintaining our world-envied lifestyle without working so hard? We wanted more money more than we wanted more time. McKibben says we made the wrong choice.
We have more trouble with mental illness, are less satisfied with our jobs and marriages, have fewer friends, and our kids are more troubled.
Up to about $10K/year more income increases happiness. After that, money stops helping. People would be wiser to put their energies into their families, social groups, and neighborhoods. Instead, people get stuck: they sacrifice what would really improve their lives in order to pursue more money.
McKibben says his alternative is emerging. There are hints in a cooperatively-owned clothing store competing with Wal-Mart in Wyoming, a bus rapid transit system in Brazil, community-supported agriculture and farmers’ markets, a Guatemalan cooperative that makes farm equipment from old bicycles, and Ren Xuping, the “Rabbit King” of China.
These examples, many of which McKibben has investigated first-hand, make for thought-provoking reading.
The book’s economics seem poorly-thought-through at times, and sometimes McKibben plays a little too fast-and-loose with the facts.
When McKibben argues that economic growth hasn’t really enriched most Americans, he says: “Even for those with four-year college degrees… earnings fell 5.2 percent between 2000 and 2004 when adjusted for inflation.” But if you look up the report this data came from, it also says that this group saw their inflation-adjusted earnings rise 12% between 1995 and 2000. McKibben doesn’t mention this, but most of us remember that the dot-com bust was preceded by a boom.
He quotes “even an arch-conservative… like Dinesh D’Souza” as calling American income inequality “staggering.” But in the source for that quote, D’Souza was characterizing someone else’s argument about income inequality, and not one to which he was sympathetic.
On the whole McKibben seems trustworthy, but it only takes a few examples like this to cast doubt.
Still, I think he’s on the right track and raises good questions, and we’d do well to try to come up with good answers
