Complete Bioeconomics & Degrowth Look Like This

 Most of the Bioeconomics of today is not that of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of the concept.  Why?  Because the "updated", new century versions are incomplete, and they seem to eschew "degrowth".  There's much more to bioeconomics than just bioenergy, which seems to be the main (or only) focus today.  Plus, the original bioeconomics promoted the idea of degrowth.

In the article below, the ecological and political economist, Giorgos Kallis (one of today's leading champions of degrowth), presents specific policies which would make possible a thriving society without economic growth.

https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/can-we-prosper-without-growth-10-policy-proposals/

Are some of these policies "radical"?  Frankly, yes; but that's the approach needed if we are to get through the ongoing Social-Ecological Crisis now upon us.  If we are to survive and thrive, we must discard the Edward Bernays style propaganda to which we've been subjected for decades.  The neoclassical/neoliberal economists have bamboozled us.

Unlimited Growth + Overconsumption + Inequality + Materialism = a rat race which is destroying not only our habitat, but us as well.  A paradigm shift in Ethics is in order.  Common sense and empirical evidence scream for it.  The main obstacle appears to be the sacrosanct vision of constant, perpetual Growth.

Tick-tock.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

"What is the Bioeconomy?"

 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/7/691/htm

Via a scholarly review of over 450 journal articles, the piece at the link above identifies and discusses three approaches or "visions" of the bioeconomy:

    1)  a bio-Tech vision;

    2)  a bio-resource vision; and,

    3)  a bio-ecology vision.

Two or more of these different approaches sometimes are implemented in combination with each other.  As you might surmise, the first two are primarily concerned with technological "fixes".  The bio-ecology approach is, in my opinion, the closest to the view of Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of bioeconomics.

Despite early theoretical work done in this discipline, the more recent research has evolved in such a way as to attract a broad range of sciences, and a heavy technological flavor.  To have a significant, long-term, and global impact on future human endeavors, Bioeconomics needs to further identify its scope and purpose, and its adherents need to consider the following.

Our primary focus should not be more technological fixes, but rather, the adoption of Ecoethics and striving to live within our means (as aggregate humanity).  The elephant in the room is Unlimited Growth.  It's not sustainable... period.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

In General, Is This Close to the Bioeconomics Being Pursued in Europe?

I haven't had time to study the article at the link below, but thought I would post it with the title question.  While I'm reviewing the piece, does anyone know the answer to the question?  [I'm guessing the answer is Yes.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567114000677

............................

You will have to scroll down when you get to the page in order to access the pdf text - "Download full text in PDF".

............................

Be Well

"The economy as if people mattered..." 2020

The open access articles at the links below are enlightening and much needed admonitions regarding the current misuse of "Green" terminology (circular, bioeconomics, Green New Deal, etc.), and the ethical problems inherent in the "Growth" (neoliberal) economy.  Neoliberal economics is attempting to paint itself green, thus supposedly justifying the continuation on the path of unlimited growth.

 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1761612#aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGFuZGZvbmxpbmUuY29tL2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8xNDc0NzczMS4yMDIwLjE3NjE2MTI/bmVlZEFjY2Vzcz10cnVlQEBAMA==

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178?via%3Dihub

..............................

It is abundantly clear by now that mainstream/neoliberal economics, more than any other relevant factor, is responsible for the disasters of:  the multi-faceted ecological crisis; rampant social & income inequality; an egregiously fragile economy; and a race to worldwide neofeudalism.  In addition to all that, neoliberals currently would have us believe:  the solution to all our problems is more & more efficient growth; and, with recycling, we don't need to worry about running out of natural resources.  Really?  No worries?

The above scenario is not the Bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen.  Not even close.  He emphasized biophysical limits, entropy, and finally, degrowth.  [Ever-changing "development" doesn't have to be "growth".]

..............................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Georgescu-Roegen's Bioeconomics Approach to Development and Change

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (G-R), a highly skilled mathematician, epistemologist, & economist, was one of the thinkers who laid the bedrock for anything "Green" in economics.  He did so with his concept of Bioeconomics.

G-R spent much of his career at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  His best known book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971), dealt not only with the two subjects in the title, but also science & thought, dialectics, epistemology, mathematical analysis, change/evolution, and society.  It's truly a "magnum opus".

Because the book detailed the problems and dangers of unlimited economic growth, it drew negative reactions from neoclassical/neoliberal economists.  After that, the work largely was ignored by mainstream economics.

G-R's Bioeconomics was/is genuinely revolutionary, and it's making a bigtime comeback.  In large part, that's due to the failures/problems of mainstream economics.  The two primary foundations of G-R's theory are as follows.
1. Human evolution, in addition to being within the body (endosomatic), has been outside the body (exosomatic) in the form of tools, machinery, industry, and external energy (e.g., fossil fuels).  Not only exosomatic manufactured components have become part of our evolution, but money as well.
2.  The recognition of the importance of qualitative change caused by new elements in economic processes is crucial to understanding economic reality.  [The mechanistic epistemology of neoclassical/neoliberal economics largely fails to account for such change because primarily (often only) mathematical analysis is used in constructing economic models.  Math formulas dominate.  G-R proposed a combination of math and a dialectical approach (involving discourse, discussion, & reasoned argumentation) in order to determine economic reality.]

In simpler terms, G-R maintained that neoclassical/neoliberal economics could not account for the unanticipated, unknown variables (e.g., the effects of industrial pollutants, social & income inequality, overharvesting of natural resources, and a plethora of anomalies in human behavior) in an economy because only math is used in economic analysis and prediction.  Dialectical reasoning - discussion of opposing views - is needed.  Input of words, not just math formulas.

In relation to development and change, G-R antagonized the mainstreamers by his insistence that economic analysis must be based on reality, observed facts, rather than mathematical abstractions.  He maintained that the neoclassical approach primarily consisted of nothing but conjecture.

For a much deeper look, see the article at the link below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01603.x

The economic genius of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen finally is being recognized.
...................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

The Circular Economy: A Few Implementation Methods

 Although I firmly believe Circular Economics does not go far enough in dealing with our ongoing Ecological Crisis - not far enough mainly because the "circular economy" approach still is wedded to unlimited growth - I nevertheless recognize the approach as a step in the right direction.  In that spirit, the links below may provide a valuable insight or two for researchers, policy makers and others.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/circular-economy  [An overview, and specific implementation methods.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918306414   ["Circular, Green, and Bio Economy: How Do Companies in Land-Use Intensive Sectors Align with Sustainability Concepts?"]

.................................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

More In-Depth Assessments of the "Circular Economy"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918317178
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302354?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email

While the new Circular Economy and Circular Economics are positive steps forward, they - as presently described - appear to be insufficient in terms of addressing our impending / ongoing eco-catastrophe.  Serious problems are present in the current theory, chief of which are as follows.

1.  Circular economics seems to be wedded to the concepts of unlimited growth and overconsumption.  It's a nice package with a "green" ribbon, but appears to continue to ignore the biophysical constraints of the ecosphere.
2.  The theory is not yet definitively constructed.  There are a few different versions of it.

Neoliberal economics, which certainly adheres to unlimited growth & overconsumption and also ignores biophysical constraints, may be at the root of this new theory.  At this point, it's difficult to know whether or not that's true.

If you're really pressed for time, at least read the short Abstracts at the two links above.
.........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

The Bioeconomics of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

Preface

Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Romanian-American masterful mathematician and economist, laid the groundwork (with his Bioeconomics) for the discipline of Ecological Economics (Eco-Econ).  Herman Daly, generally acknowledged as the "Father of Eco-Econ", was Georgescu-Roegen's student back in the day.

The article at the link below relates in great detail a small part of the Bioeconomics founder's life.  His most famous publication was the book, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971).  It's a discussion of a key principle in Eco-Econ.
.......................
Why Study History?

In this particular case, there are at least two reasons:
1)  It's a fairly fascinating story.
2)  It's a great example of how and why a brilliant idea/concept can get smothered, ignored, delayed, and essentially squashed by the Establishment in any field of endeavor.  In regard to the application of entropy to economics, that's still ongoing to some degree by "mainstream" (neoliberal) economists.
.......................
Conclusion

In trying to grasp the essence of any discipline, it's important to delve into its history.  I imagine some/many younger people who find Eco-Econ extremely appealing often wonder why it's not already implemented.  The article at the link below will give anyone great insight into a few possible/likely reasons for that.  It should encourage them to "hang in there".

https://www.degrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Levallois_degrowth-an-historical-nite.pdf
........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well