这位先锋经济学家认为，我们对增长的痴迷必须终结
大卫·马尔凯塞 2022年7月17日
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/07/18/magazine/herman-daly-interview.html
增长是主流经济和政治思想的终极目标。有人告诉我们，如果GDP没有持续增长，社会就会面临动荡的风险，生活水平也会下降，进步的希望也会荡然无存。
但另一种违反直觉的可能性呢？我们目前对增长的追求，尽管如此狂热，并造成了如此巨大的生态破坏，其代价可能大于收益。这种可能性——优先考虑增长最终是一场必输的游戏——正是备受赞誉的经济学家赫尔曼·戴利50多年来一直在探索的。通过这种方式，他提出了支持稳态经济的论据，这种经济摒弃了对增长永不满足且破坏环境的渴望，认识到地球的物理局限性，转而寻求可持续的经济和生态平衡。“增长是我们现行体系的偶像，”戴利说道。他是马里兰大学公共政策学院名誉教授，曾任世界银行高级经济学家，与格蕾塔·通贝里和爱德华·斯诺登等人一起获得了享有盛誉的“正确生活方式奖”（通常被称为“另类诺贝尔奖”）。“每个政治家都支持增长，”84岁的戴利继续说道，“没有人反对增长，也没有人支持稳态或趋于平稳。但我认为，这是一个基本的问题：增长是否会变得不经济？”
你支持稳态经济的基本论点背后有一个显而易见的逻辑：经济和地球上的其他一切一样，都受制于物理限制和热力学定律，因此不可能永远增长。不那么显而易见的是，在一个经济蛋糕停止增长的世界里，我们的社会将如何运作。我曾听过像彼得·泰尔这样的人说过，没有增长，我们最终会陷入暴力。在我看来，这暗示着对人类可能性的一种相当有限且悲观的看法。你对人性以及我们愿意和平分享蛋糕的看法，难道比他的观点更乐观吗？首先，我并不反对财富增长。我认为富裕总比贫穷好。问题是，目前的实践和衡量方式真的能增加财富吗？它是否让我们在总体上变得更富有，还是成本的增长速度快于收益的增长速度，从而让我们变得更贫穷？主流经济学家对此没有任何答案。他们之所以没有答案，是因为他们没有衡量成本。他们只衡量收益。GDP 就是收益。GDP 本身没有任何减损。但自由意志主义的理念合乎逻辑。如果你要成为自由意志主义者，你就不能接受增长受限。但增长受限是存在的。我记得肯尼斯·博尔丁说过，道德有两种。一种是英雄道德，一种是经济道德。经济道德说：等等，有收益也有成本。让我们权衡一下。我们不想直接冲下悬崖。让我们看看边际。我们是变得更好了还是更糟了？英雄道德说：不计成本！全速前进！要么现在就死，要么现在就胜利！朝着增长的方向前进！我想，这表明了一种信念：如果我们现在制造了太多问题，未来会学会如何处理。
你有这种信念吗？[笑] 不，我没有。
历史上，我们认为经济增长会带来更高的生活水平、更低的死亡率等等。那么，难道我们没有道德义务去追求它吗？在生态经济学中，我们试图区分发展（development）和增长（growth）。当某种东西生长时，它通过物质的积累或同化而变得更大。当某种东西发展（development）时，它在质量上会变得更好。它不必变得更大。计算机就是一个例子。现在，你用计算机中少量的物质基础就能进行大量的计算。这才是真正的发展。生活的艺术并不等同于“更多东西”。人们偶尔会瞥见这一点，然后我们又会陷入“更多、更多、更多”的泥潭。
但是，一个国家如何在不增加GDP的情况下继续提高其生活水平？认为增长正在提高当今世界的生活水平是一个错误的假设，因为我们用GDP的增长来衡量增长。如果GDP增长了，这是否意味着我们的生活水平正在提高？我们说过确实如此，但我们忽略了提高GDP的所有成本。我们真的不知道标准是否真的在提高。如果扣除车祸、化学污染、野火造成的伤亡以及过度增长带来的许多其他成本，结果就完全不明朗了。我刚才说的对富裕国家来说尤其如此。当然，对其他一些正在为生存而挣扎的国家来说，
GDP增长必然会增加福利。他们需要经济增长。这意味着富裕国家必须为贫困人口腾出生态空间，使他们能够达到可接受的生活水平。这意味着要削减人均消费，避免将所有资源都用于琐碎的消费。
赫尔曼·戴利，1969年，范德堡大学教师。摘自赫尔曼·戴利
您提到“腾出生态空间”，这让我想起您关于世界如何从一个空旷的世界走向一个充满的世界的论述。但我们如何知道我们的世界已经充满，以及我们是否已经接近地球生态容量的极限？我所说的空旷世界，充满了尚未开发的自然资源。我所说的充满的世界，现在充满了开发这些资源的人，而这个世界已经没有了那些已经枯竭的资源和被污染的空间。所以，问题在于，这个世界“空”了什么，又“充满”了什么。它是否“空”了收益，又“充满”了成本？还是充满好处而毫无成本？这就涉及到关注增长成本的问题了。
我们在过去的经济衰退或增长停滞时期所经历的严重困难，难道不??预示着稳定状态经济会发生什么吗？增长型经济无法增长是一场灾难。稳定状态经济不增长却取得成功，并非灾难。这就像飞机和直升机的区别。飞机的设计目标是向前飞行。如果飞机必须静止不动，它就会坠毁。而直升机的设计目标是静止不动，就像蜂鸟一样。所以，这是两种不同设计的比较，其中一种设计的失败并不意味着另一种设计的失败或成功。但为了从我们目前的增长型经济转向稳定状态经济，就意味着一些重要的设计原则——一些基本设计的改变。
假设明天美国政府宣布承认生态平衡的必要性，并将不再强调增长。难道其他国家不必做出同样的决定才能达到预期的生态效果吗？这是一个非常棘手的问题。如果你试图制定法律来计算你在美国生产的生态成本，然后与另一个不计算成本的国家建立贸易关系，那么他们就拥有了竞争优势。从长远来看，他们可能会毁掉自己，但从短期来看，他们会以低于你的价格出售产品。这给自由贸易者带来了巨大的问题，因为解决这个问题的答案是通过征收关税来保护美国产业。我曾经倾向于建立一个全球政府。我不知道是什么改变了我的想法。也许是在世界银行待了六年，让我觉得全球治理就像一个幻想。我认为你被困在民族国家里了。但这是全球主义与国际主义的对抗。全球主义主张消除国家界限。让我们建立一个我们在全球范围内管理的全球体系。国际主义认为国家界限很重要，但并非最终目标。这正是布雷顿森林体系背后的理念。我们说过，我们身处一个相互依存的国家世界，这些国家本质上彼此独立，但又努力合作。这就是我们目前所坚持的模式。因此，最好的前进之路是各国努力走向稳定状态，接受需要征收一定关税的现实，并希望由此产生的利益足以说服其他国家效仿。
你所说的很多内容都与让人类——从个人到企业再到政府——接受“足够”的理念，并认为限制追求“更多”的能力是一件好事有关。这些理念与现代西方社会，尤其是某些自由观念格格不入。那么，什么样的转折点或机制能够让人们摆脱这种“更多”的思维模式呢？那么，你如何设想一个成功的稳定经济？首先，回过头来说，你如何设想一个成功的稳定地球？这个问题比较简单，因为我们生活在一个稳定地球里。地球并没有膨胀。我们没有获得新材料，也没有向太空出口物资。所以地球处于稳定状态，如果你没有意识到这一点，那么，教育就会有问题。但话说回来，英雄伦理和经济伦理也很重要。也许英雄伦理是正确的，但宗教的忠告是关注成本。不要让人们的境况变得更糟。
戴利（左三）与1996年在斯德哥尔摩获得“正确生活方式奖”的其他获奖者合影。Eric Roxfelt/美联社
你的宗教信仰会影响你的经济理念吗？我先从这个问题的第二部分开始。当你学习经济学时，你会考察目的和手段之间的关系。你想要分配你的手段，以最大限度地满足你的目的。但是
传统经济学始于我所说的中间手段和中间目的。我们的中间目的可能是良好的饮食、教育、一定程度的闲暇、健康——财富带来的益处。我们将我们的手段用于这些中间目的。我们的中间手段是我们能够生产的商品：食品、工业品、教育。经济学正在从有限的中间手段走向经济学认为无限的中间目的。我认为，我们不应该只谈论中间手段。我们应该问一问我们的最终手段是什么。为了满足我们的目的，什么是必需的，而我们自己无法制造，只能接受的？这样一个大问题有答案吗？我认为是有的。我从我的老教授乔治斯库-罗根那里学到，答案是物质和低熵能量。你需要物质和能量来实现你的物理目的。但热力学第一定律指出，物质和能量既不能被毁灭也不能被创造。你可以改变它们的形式，所有过程都会将这种形式从低熵的有用能量转变为高熵的无用能量。我们的最终手段受熵定律的约束。但最终目的是否存在呢？这个问题很难回答。
你能帮我试试吗？我想我们都处于必须自己尝试回答这个问题的境地。但我可以排除目前的答案，即增长是最终目的。现在，你也可以说精神上的提升才是最终目的。这会引出一些基本的宗教问题：生命的意义是什么？我从哪里来？我死后会发生什么？这些问题过去常常被人们视为根本问题。现在，它们变得边缘化，不科学。我对当今经济学的批评是，它过于唯物主义，因为它没有考虑最终目的和中间目的之间的关系。同时，经济学也不够唯物主义，因为它也拒绝探讨最终手段。它没有探究世界、物质和能量的熵性本质的根本极限，以及如何适应这些物理极限。
让我先暂时停留在终极目标上。你认为生命的意义是什么？每个人都有自己的答案，即使只是为了开个玩笑，但我是基督徒。我确实认为存在一位造物主。我不认为你可以说生命是一场意外，而这恰恰是科学唯物主义所说的。新达尔文主义长期以来在哲学上搭了便车。当你计算所有这些无限小概率事件同时发生并产生生命的复合概率时，它就变得相当荒谬了。新达尔文主义者会说：“是的，我们接受这一点，这是数学。??” 生命在我们的宇宙中偶然起源是完全不可能的。“但我们有无数个未被观测到的宇宙！” 无数个未被观测到的宇宙？“从数学上讲，这可能发生！” 而我们的宇宙是幸运的？他们鄙视那些声称存在造物主的宗教人士：这是不科学的。科学观点是什么？我们赢了宇宙彩票。拜托。
你花了一生的时间理性而勤奋地为自己的想法辩护，而且关于单纯以增长为基础的经济替代方案的讨论也正在进行。但增长仍然是王道。这难道不令人失望吗？我的职责是尽我所能，提出一些想法。我种下的种子是否会生长，不取决于我。我只取决于我如何播种和浇水。当然，我不认为最终的伦理要求是焚烧地球，所以我乐于看到生态经济学和稳态经济学的理念不断进步。但你问的是失望。我收到很多批评，比如“我不喜欢这样；这不现实”。我没有收到更理性的批评，比如“你的预设是错误的”或“你推理的逻辑是错误的”。这令人失望。 Georgescu-Roegen 提出了许多相同的论点，但他也完全被忽视了。他本人对数理经济学做出了其他贡献，这些贡献本应为他那些更激进的想法提供可信度，但事实并非如此。我缺乏独立思考的能力，因此更不可能被认真对待。但意想不到的事情确实会发生。
本次采访根据两次对话进行了编辑和精简。
开篇插图：马里兰大学照片
David Marchese 是本杂志的特约撰稿人，也是《Talk》杂志的专栏作家。最近，他采访了 Neal Stephenson，探讨如何描绘乌托邦式的未来；采访了 Laurie Santos，探讨了幸福；采访了 Christopher Walken，探讨了表演。
This Pioneering Economist Says Our Obsession With Growth Must End
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?”
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.
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.
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.
