Infinite Growth Cannot Occur In A Finite Environment

In his recent posting, Mr. Welker made a reference to Julian Simon, an economist who claimed that infinite growth can occur in a finite environment due to constant technological progresses. This is in direct contradiction to several laws of physics, as we are already quickly approaching the limits of nano-technology, where nano-chips will become the size of atoms. Surely a piece of technology cannot be much smaller than an atom? Without getting into the details of science and technology, it is safe to say that E.F. Schumacher was correct in saying that "the illusion of unlimited powers, nourished by astonishing scientific and technological achievements, has produced the concurrent illusion of having solved the problem of production." (From his book "Small Is Beautiful"; Chapter 1, The Problem Of Production) He previously attempted to explain our obsession with technological advancements by stating the obvious which is seldom taken acknowledged or taken into consideration; "modern man does not experience himself as a part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it."
I could continue quoting Schumacher on his well-presented and argued ideas on how with nature "we are dealing with [irreplaceable] capital and not with income", and that we should allocate more time and attention to "improve 'the quality of life' and not merely ... increase the quantity of consumption." But this would only touch on the larger problem, a problem which, I feel, Mr. Welker has, knowingly or not, hit at its core.

"As Marco says, “we should not only perceive the world in terms of economics”. On this point I could not agree with him more. Indeed, economics may not provide you or me with answers to life’s most basic questions, like where I’ll go when I die; but one question this imperfect science will help answer is how will my basic needs be met while I’m here on this earth burdened with the curse of scarcity? The answer? Markets. Alas, the invisible hand of which Smith spoke may not be that of God, rather that of the Almighty Dollar."

Mr. Welker here claims that man's basic needs need to be met, and that markets solve this problem. True, markets have been around since the beginning of time, back to the Mesopotamians trading fish. But consider that man's basic needs; shelter, food, the various psychological needs of man, and their self-esteem, are not always tended to by the profit-maximizing methods of today. With large businesses following Adam Smith's principle of specialization, self-esteem is attacked. With corporations setting up shop in the less-developed world, they are still doing no favours for the people's self-esteem, and their exploitation is hurting the basic needs of the other three. Indeed, poor nourishment is not uncommon among sweatshop workers, as is lack of proper housing. That's right, a shanty town is not proper housing. And remind me again where the profits go?

Looking at much of the so-called 'developed world' (believe it or not, there is starvation and lack of proper shelter in the USA.), we have already achieved our basic needs. We also sustain-ably maintain them. What do we do now? The emerging trend is that of material accumulation. We have now become obsessed with how much we have. It cannot be articulated much better than E.F. Schumacher himself, who writes "It is no accident that successful businessmen are often astonishingly primitive; they live in a world made primitive by this process of reduction [where the sole goal in life is profit]," in the chapter "Socialism" of his book "Small Is Beautiful".

This is the problem that economics has created. It does not take into account whether "a particular action is conducive to the wealth and well-being of a society, whether it leads to moral, aesthetic, or cultural enrichment." Given, many governments attempt to maintain a certain degree of aesthetic beauty by giving scholarships to artists, and banning the destruction of old buildings, but the reason why the government intervention is necessary is that otherwise people would only pursue profits. True, government will always be necessary, I am not that naive, nor inclined to think that way. But the amount of purely profit-seeking activities going on in the world is really astonishing. Perhaps it shows not something wrong with economics as a field of study, but perhaps it highlights something inherently wrong with the way economics is being used, and thus the society of today, where we abuse everything we can to make money.