More on the Secular "Religion" of Unlimited Growth and Overconsumption - A Bit of History & Philosophy

Preface

As social beings, we humans recognize the importance of structure, organization, and institutions in everyday life.  That's true all across the political spectrum.  The amount of those pillars desired may vary from ideological group to group, but no one who is sane wants "Mad Max".  So, we are reassured when we believe that politicians, religious leaders, economists, and others are keeping things in society humming along to the benefit of all.  We feel secure to varying degrees, and life makes some sense.

The movers & shakers within those pillars know full well that it's crucial to maintain our faith in their abilities.  Many/most of them have spent their professional lives working within and promoting a particular ideology or viewpoint.  That's true whether the field is politics, or religion, or economics, or anything else.  They truly believe in what they're doing and, for the betterment of society, would like to see it continue.  [I'm excluding fraudsters and greedy sociopaths from the previous sentence.]  Also, it's how they make their living.

The-Powers-That-Be and their apprentices learned this long ago:  logic usually is not the best way to get people to adhere to your beliefs.  Appeal to emotion is much more effective.  Once emotion is generated, it's not especially difficult to transition to the final step:  make belief in your viewpoint faith-based.  Once there, any challenge to the system/belief/ideology is viewed as sacrilegious, and is not tolerated.  Rather than engaging the "rebel" in productive and critical discourse, the heretic usually is attacked, denigrated, and dismissed.
..................................
The Secular Religion of Mainstream Economics

Once the philosophical underpinnings were laid in the 1930's at the U. of Chicago (and elsewhere), Professor Frank Knight and others began to spread the "gospel" of neoclassical/neoliberal economics.  In 1947, the neoliberal think tank, the Mont Pelerin Society, was co-founded by Knight, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and several others.  Noted members have included many business moguls, and famous journalists such as the liberal, Pulitzer Prize winner, Walter Lippmann, and the former radical Max Eastman.  Some of them rejected the term, "neoliberalism", but not the economic philosophy.  They preferred the term, "neoclassical".  They truly believed their new economics was going to spread freedom and lift the developing (or underdeveloped) parts of the world out of poverty.  The main themes were:  free market economics, free trade, and minimal (if any) government oversight.  The market would regulate itself.  [Note:  years ago, I believed in all that.  Over time, I came to realize that such policies were resulting in egregious corporatism, inequality, and ecological destruction.]

It was quite an uphill battle for them.  At the time, Keynesian economics reigned supreme.  The neoliberals kept building their base.  Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization was being formed... which took years.  After the socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected in Chile in 1970, Kissinger convinced Nixon that Chile was a cancer that would spread throughout the region.  When the elected Allende was overthrown by a military coup (aided by our CIA) in Chile on 9-11-73, Pinochet was installed as the new leader of the country.  Neoliberals convinced him to adopt their economic policies.  Later, they considered the Chile "experiment" a success (relative to neoclassical/neoliberal economics).

In the economic disruptions of the 1970's, a few flaws in Keynesian economics became glaringly obvious.  No time to detail them here.  Then, with Reagan and Thatcher, came the Washington Consensus... neoliberalism through & through.  The neoliberals had made their first big breakthrough.  Chile was small potatoes compared to Reaganomics.  [I left out the Carter Administration, which was prior to Reagan.  They did a bit of deregulation, and were a bit corporatist/globalist (mostly due to Brzezinski) but, like Chile with Pinochet, the Carter Crew were nothing in terms of neoliberalism compared to Reagan].

From then to present day, neoliberal/neoclassical/mainstream economics has been, and continues to be, sacrosanct.  That's true even though covid-19 has seriously wounded it.  For any economist (or really, anyone) challenging it, you essentially are guaranteed to be professionally suppressed and dismissed.  There's no need for mainstreamers to defend their ideology because to them it's simply a given.  They largely shift the blame for any problems--- inequality, ecological damage, increasing numbers of monopolies, etc.--- off their ideology and onto anything & everything else.  Perhaps those problems are due to a combination of factors; nevertheless, it should be plain by now that neoliberalism is responsible for at least a large portion of them.

The following flaws are ignored by mainstream economists---

1. Neoliberal economists seem to have little to no grasp of complexity theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXIJF5ytpM  [The clip is only 6.5 minutes long, and gives an excellent overview of the concept.]  Never mind (for a moment) their unrealistic belief that economics and economies are separate from, and larger than, Nature... which is bad enough.  Perhaps worse is their view that the individual parts of any natural system are separate from each other.  Thus, in their ignorant thinking, one part can be removed, damaged, or destroyed without any serious effects on other parts or the whole.

I can imagine certain economists saying to central planners:  so what if we clearcut tropical forests?  They're only trees.  We need the lumber, and farmers/ranchers need the pasture or crop fields, or developers need the space for housing projects.

That kind of thinking allows the true believers in unlimited growth and overconsumption on a finite planet to pursue their shortsighted objectives.  Any problems are considered negative "externalities", and not their concern.

2.  In the same vein, they appear to fail to understand the creation of a "whole" that is greater than the sum of its parts--- synergy.  The phenomenon is common in both natural and artificial systems.  Ecosystems are without a doubt, synergistic, and they are our life support.  For that reason, we must treat them with due consideration and care.

Decades ago and in a somewhat broader context, the esteemed macrohistorian, Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown U., gave the following assessment.

"Professor [Lynn] White's thesis is that when the Judeo-Christian faith established the view that there is no spirit in nature other than the human, the world was reduced to a created object to be exploited [conquered] by humans, and the way was thus opened to the destruction of nature and to the total pollution of the world -- a consequence that may have become inevitable with the rejection, in the latter thirteenth century, of the message of St. Francis to treat all nature as sacred.

The cognitive techniques derived from our underlying outlook have included ( a) using analysis rather than synthesis in seeking answers to problems; (b) isolating problems and studying them in a vacuum instead of using an ecological approach; ( c) using techniques based on quantification rather than on qualification study done in a contextual situation; (d) proceeding on the assumption of single-factor causation rather than pluralistic, ecological causation; and (e) basing decisions and actions on needs of the individual rather than needs of the group."

Quigley, Carroll, "Needed: A Revolution in Thinking", National Education Association Journal, Volume 57, May 1968, pp. 8-10.

Point being:  warnings were given long ago.  To this day, however, too many people seem to be ignoring them.  While the revolution in thinking has progressed since the above article, we need to pick up the pace.  Immediately.

3.  Mainstream economists and oligarchs have promulgated the following, and have indoctrinated Main Street to the hilt in this false narrative.

• Material wealth is always meritorious and indicative of success and happiness in life.
• Poverty is almost always the result of individual failing.

4.  Whether it intended to or not, neoliberalism has installed massive central planning in the economic sphere... planning not by governments, but rather by central banks (which are privately owned), other mega banks, and other mega corporations.  Governments largely go along with the whole scenario because politicians get campaign funds mostly from those private institutions.  Don't bite the hand that finances you.

I don't believe I need to explain why that setup is a really big flaw in the secular religion of perpetual growth & overconsumption, or why it's damaging to Main Street.  That should be obvious.

Years ago, in a PBS News Hour interview during his time as Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan stated:  "We are completely independent.  No one has control over us.".  Given some of their testimony during congressional hearings after the 2008 Crash, mega bank CEOs apparently feel pretty much the same way.
.................................
Conclusion

If we are to thrive on Spaceship Earth, it seems obvious to me that we must address all the above in an ecological (holistic) manner.  Except for a relatively few individuals and groups/institutions, we have been doing little more than tinkering around the edges of massive problems for decades.  A major change is past due.  Though they are relatively few, those who have been working for decades on solutions to our many, interrelated, and various dilemmas deserve our esteem, support, and thanks.  Ironically, those people are too numerous to list.  Plus, many are essentially unknown in the broader sense.  Kudos to all.

The priests of the Unlimited Growth paradigm usually wind up extolling it via a reference to the glory of capitalism.  But which capitalism are they talking about?  Is it crony capitalism, or casino capitalism, or disaster capitalism, or the one in which a central bank uses central planning to totally eliminate a "free market" when it comes to currency/interest rates/other monetary issues?  One thing is certain--- it's NOT the capitalism of Adam Smith.  Not even close.  Plus, why do those high priests ignore the fact that the USA and other democratic countries have had a Mixed Economy for decades & decades?  That was true even during the Golden Age of American Capitalism (from the end of WW II to 1971).

It's time to make some noise... time to seriously consider Aldo Leopold's  "Land Ethic"... time to stop being lemmings going over the cliff... time to get some ethical backbone... time to stop drinking the Edward Bernays style Propaganda Kool Aid... time to push for cooperation rather than division... for tolerance rather than hate... for sanity in politics rather than psychological gaslighting... and finally, it's time to promote with vigor the idea that this precious planet on which we live has limits which must be respected.
................................
Not only my opinion.  Happy Trails

"Economics for a Full World", & a Sustainable World

Preface

This isn't only about economics.  It's also about ethics, respect for and appreciation of the biosphere/ecosphere, respect for all sentient beings, and a path to a sustainable, mostly peaceful world.

At the links below, Professors Herman Daly and William Rees give masterful, concise explanations of ecological economics.  The Daly essay is a longer, illustrated read, but both require your full attention in order to comprehend them.  The Rees piece (the link was posted previously on this blog) includes a brilliant comparison to neoliberal/mainstream economics (aka, neoclassical economics).

Both essays do a great job of weaving the larger ethical, political, and ecological contexts into the discussions.
.................................
https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-for-a-full-world

https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-vs-the-economy
................................
Conclusion

For anyone desiring to understand the best solution to a large part of our ongoing problems on Earth, the essays above are a must-read.  Study them as if our lives depended on it... because they do.  Then, do whatever you can to support and promote these concepts.  Thanks, and my grandkids thank you as well.  😊
p.s.  I recommend reading the Rees piece first - Economics vs. the Economy.
..............................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

An Alternative to the Obsession With GDP

Preface

Mainstream economics is obsessed with gross domestic product (GDP) growth.  Those who measure GDP growth are convinced that any amount of it is a good sign for the economy, and that's how it's presented to the public.  Furthermore, any economy is considered to be separate from Nature (or worse, Nature is only a small part of the economy); also, sustainability of natural resources is rarely ever considered.  The only resources taken into account during the bulk of economic planning are artificial--- railways, trucks, factories, ships, etc.--- or are humans (labor).  A bit of consideration is given to natural resource availability, but usually not in any holistic way.  To be more concise, mainstream economists value Nature only for what can be extracted from it, and for the amount of wastes that can be dumped back into it.

Note---  these topics are not "flashy", but understanding them is crucial to the continued organized existence of human beings.  The path we're still on is leading to species suicide.  That's not hyperbole.
.............................
The Flaws in Mainstream Economic Thinking

1.  Herman Daly and other Steady-State economists astutely have pointed out the probability of growth beyond an optimal scale that is uneconomic.  In other words, growth in which the costs outweigh the benefits.  Mainstream economists don't agree.  That's because they don't know the overall practical value of Nature to economics and human well-being.  Nor do they appear to understand the true costs of ecosystem damage inflicted by human mainstream economic activity.  To them, ecosystems merely are a tiny part of the economy.  That's especially true now that financialization has become a larger part of economies.  So, I imagine this quip from a mainstreamer:  "We don't need Nature.  To increase GDP, all we have to do is shuffle more papers (so to speak).".

2.  The practical value of natural capital and ecosystem services is often somewhat invisible to, and thus vastly underestimated or ignored by, mainstream economists.  Here's a short introduction to the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIUglBligI .
Here's another, with E.O. Wilson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duOzXGTuUrA .

3.  Mainstream economists fail to recognize that GDP as a measurement of  economic health (and human well-being) is incomplete in the long run, and thus misleading.

Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) Approach

From the Natural Capital Project at Stanford U.---
https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/news/accounting-nature-economies
For those of you who may be at a more advanced level regarding this subject, here's the link to the full study--- (which also is embedded at the link above as "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences").
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/25/14593 .
This ecological approach, developed by the Natural Capital Project, already is being tested in China.  The EU has something similar:  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES).
.............................
Conclusion

The philosophy and policies of neoliberalism/mainstream economics have brought us to where we are today:  environmental degradation; little to no concern for the importance of ecosystem services; little concern for industrial waste disposal (especially if it's into the atmosphere); the unsustainable use of natural capital; and a false belief in unlimited growth, overconsumption, GDP as a complete measure of economic health, and corporatism.  If all that isn't bad enough, we're on the brink of the largest, most severe ecodisaster in human history.  Meanwhile, the Super-Rich are laughing all the way to the bank, most politicians are doing a lot of talking and not much else, and the corporatist propagandists are running amok.

A ray of hope---
A shift to ecological economics, as well as the continued development of the GEP approach to economic measurement, and the adoption of ecoethics is the best path forward... and it's all possible.
............................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Not Understanding Aspects of Science Can be Problematic

Preface

What is "science"?  Both definitions below apply.
1.  Science is a systematically/methodically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
2.  It's also an activity involving the systematic study of the structure and function of various aspects of the physical/natural world.
................................
What Some People Don't Seem to Understand

1.  Science and scientists deal in degrees of probability, not certainty.  In other words, science is not absolute.  Why?  There are too many variables (known and unknown) to be accounted for in any scientific investigation.  Because of that, when new discoveries are made in a particular area of research, the previous theory is likely to be modified or even discarded.  With new research, past conclusions change.

At any particular time, our knowledge is limited.  Even some theoretical physicists have said (paraphrased):  we humans have barely scratched the surface of reality.  That runs contrary to what many, perhaps most, people think regarding what we know.  In short, we are not as knowledgeable as we generally believe.  One of the biggest problems in the world today is that too many times we jump to conclusions based upon insufficient/inadequate information.

2.  Scientists sometimes do not arrive at the same conclusion regarding any particular topic of research.  Why?  The reasons are many and varied.  For instance, scientist A may have a vested interest in a particular outcome, while scientist B may be more objective.  Or, scientist A may understand the technical aspects of the study much better than scientist B.  Or... etc.

All the above is why science relies on many investigations, rigorous peer review, and constant challenging of results before accepting any theory as the closest known approximation to what's "true".  Even then, the future may hold some surprises concerning accepted beliefs.
....................................
Why A Lack of Understanding of the Above Items Can be Problematic

• Too many people appear to want instant answers nowadays.  Worse than that, they seem to expect absolutes.  When they get neither, too many migrate over to nonscientific, emotional positions held by autocrat wannabes, corporatists, and others with destructive vested interests.
• Their misunderstandings of science often lead them to reject scientific warnings of damage to natural systems which is not immediately and blatantly visible.  They can experience damage to the economy.  When it comes to the complexity of ecosystem damage, that's not always so visible.
• When new research results in a modification to some particular theory, instead of accepting that as normal, I suspect that too many people tend to reject science in total.  A trivial example---  A fictitious person with little science knowledge speaking:  "First their research claims that drinking coffee is bad for you, then more research says it's good for you, and now it's back to bad for you.  They don't know what's what."  

.....................................
Conclusion

Every time I've read a research article, a "journal article", I've again been impressed with the dedication, the rigor, and the discipline that goes into scientific investigations.  Because of my interests, that's especially true for the natural sciences.  So, for decades I've been amazed and somewhat dismayed by too many people seemingly rejecting the warnings by scientists of the damage being done to natural systems... and of the ever-increasing impact on humans and society in general.

I believe this essay explains a part of that rejection.  Other things are instrumental, too... propaganda/advertising, materialism, the wanting of more & more & more, a lack of education, distractions due to "bread and circuses", etc.  If organized human existence is to thrive on our finite planet, then all that has to change.

Some people believe the answer is for humanity to migrate to another celestial body.  I'm open-minded, but consider the following.  Exactly how are we going to transport billions of people to this new home.  More importantly, who do you think would get to make the trip (should it ever be a possible choice)?  My guess is:  the Super-Rich, and a small contingent of "workers".  Not many others.  So, I don't think that's a viable option.

Though the obstacles are great, a much better option is to change our ethics, change our economic system (which is destroying our life support), and clean up the mess we've made.  Some countries, Germany comes to mind, are already starting that whole process.  Europe, in general, is light-years ahead of the USA in that regard.  Kudos.
.............................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Unlimited Growth, Overconsumption, Equity, and Ecological Economics

Preface

It should be axiomatic that the concept of perpetual, unlimited economic growth and consumption on a finite planet is delusional thinking.  Instead, that concept appears to be the unquestionable mantra of mainstream/neoliberal economics around the world.  I believe it came to be that way because it started when our world was relatively empty of humans, and relatively full of natural resources.

Even later, when I was a freshman at Colorado State U. (1961), the human population was only three billion.  Perceptions of future, unlimited possibilities were quite different then.  Even though it was fairly pervasive, environmental degradation largely was unrecognized by most people.  Natural resources seemed to be super abundant, and in a perpetually unlimited supply.  Overall, the biophysical world appeared to be almost limitless.  The idol of unlimited economic expansion was "worshipped" around the world.

In 1968, a book by Paul R. Ehrlich & his wife, Anne, The Population Bomb, was published.  It was a best-seller, and made the points that this planet is finite, the natural environment will be degraded even more significantly, and the availability of resources will not keep pace with overpopulation.  The book was attacked rather viciously by believers in unlimited growth.

In 1972, after a two-year study by M.I.T. researchers (utilizing a large, mainframe computer), the results were published in a book titled, The Limits of Growth.  Like the Ehrlichs' book, it was a best-seller.  And it was attacked even more fiercely.  This is a fascinating story, and the author, Christopher Ketcham, is one helluva writer.  See the details here---
https://psmag.com/magazine/fallacy-of-endless-growth .
....................................
The Ignorance & Neglect by Economists of Biophysical Constraints

It appears to me that most mainstream economists have little to no higher education in the natural sciences.  In the essay at the link above, Ketcham quotes a number of them, as follows.
1. Oxford U. economist, W. Beckerman:  "[There's] no reason to suppose that economic growth cannot continue for another 2,500 years.".
2.  Harvard economist, C. Kaysen:  "[Some studies show] the Earth's available matter and energy could support a population of 3.5 trillion...".
3.  J. Simon (deceased), University of Illinois economist, stated in 1992:  "We now have... the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years.".
Those beliefs are, of course, sheer nonsense.  I can surmise only that they are due to an almost total ignorance of natural science.

In contrast, ecological economics fully recognizes biophysical constraints, and the negative impacts on our natural life support systems of pursuing unlimited growth.  From An Introduction to Ecological Economics (1997), by Robert Costanza, Herman Daly, et.al.:  "The basic problems...include:  ...highly entropy-increasing technologies that deplete the earth of its resources and whose unassimilated wastes poison the air, water, and land... ".

Unlimited Growth and Overconsumption

I recently watched a 2011 British documentary, "Consumed - inside the belly of the beast".  It effectively illustrated humanity's cultural evolution to the stage at which we find ourselves now:  lost in materialism, consumerism, short-term shallow thinking, the pursuit of unnecessary prestige, and trying our best to ignore the destruction of the ecosphere.  It also put forth the proposition that this stage is a temporary glitch in the development of the species, Homo sapiens.  The makers of the film see a future shift to sustainability and ecoethics.  Let's all hope that's the case for our species.

The film detailed how, over decades, we've been molded by advertising and propaganda to believe that consumer goods can bring us meaning, prestige, contentment, fulfillment, and the big kahuna, happiness.  The key is to buy more and more goods.  Over the years, as we've come to realize ultimately none of that is true, our discontent, anxiety, and emptiness all have increased.  During the same time, we've been trained (in a sense) to seek instant gratification, all the latest tech gizmos (to be replaced every year or two), and to desire having "the latest thing".  Now, we're at the point of a line from an old Rolling Stones' song:  "I can't get no satisfaction.".  On top of all that, too many people seem to believe that Nature is nice, but not especially important... and not really necessary.

In recent years, both mainstream economists and corporate America have used all the above to double-down on their promotion of perpetual, unlimited growth.  Any problems regarding natural resource depletion or ecosphere damage, they say, can be handled by new technology and/or the substitution of one resource for another.  Some mega corporations even have advertised their new "green" initiatives concerning corporate operations.  There's one big problem with all these solutions:  they are all within the framework of continuing unlimited economic growth and consumption... on a finite planet.

Ever-increasing economic growth means ever-increasing throughput. "Throughput" is the total flow of resources from the Earth ecosystem to the economic subsystem... and then back to the ecosystem as waste.  One doesn't have to be a genius to understand that more & more & more of such a system is unsustainable.  It's folly to believe that undiscovered, new technology and/or substitutable resources will prevent the collapse of our natural life support system.  That collapse already has started.  Much more than we've been trying to, we need to mitigate it NOW.  We must undergo a major shift in ethical and cultural values.  The old paradigm is killing us... literally... and both directly & indirectly.  It's time to implement steady-state, ecological economics.

Equity

It's all well and good to say, in the developed world countries we have a democratic system which ensures everyone's chance to pursue happiness and fulfillment; however, the reality is as follows.
1.  The playing field too often is not level; it's not even close to level.
2.  Resources (including financial resources) often are not allocated fairly.
3.  Many countries (including the USA) don't appear to understand the value of having all citizens educated to the highest degree that their capabilities and desires allow.  Some other, more enlightened nations provide access to universal higher education at (for the most part) no cost to the student.
4.  Adequate health care for many people (including many in the USA) is not available, or is too expensive.
5.  Neoliberal politics and corporatist policies (both public and private) greatly favor the Upper Class.  The excuse given is that the Rich supply jobs to everyone else.  Wealth supposedly "trickles down".  That's more often not true than it's true.  Even when it does happen, the jobs too often are temporary and/or part-time, and/or low-paying.
6.  Too many poor people often are relegated to living in neighborhoods which are much too close to the "sinks" of economic throughput wastes.  The resulting exposure to air pollution, water pollution, and land/soil pollution negatively affects their physical health, mental health, and general well-being.
7.  Perpetual wars and insanely bloated defense budgets siphon limited funds away from infrastructure repair/replacement and from social safety nets.  Primarily, they benefit Mega Banks and other Mega Corporations.  The wars often are the result of shrinking natural resources.  Stronger countries want guaranteed access to them.

Conclusion

Pursuing unlimited economic growth, overconsumption, a lack of equity, perpetual wars, essentially unlimited population growth, and neoliberal policies in general have resulted in:
1.  an ecological crisis probably never before imagined (shrinking natural resources, damaged or destroyed ecosystems, disease proliferation, an excess of greenhouse gases, increasing pollution in general, a loss of necessary biodiversity, etc.);
2.  gross social and income inequality (due to a lack of equity and ethics);
3.  a growing discontent with both public and private institutions; and,
4.  an increasing sense of despair over the condition of humanity.

It's time for a significant change in present-day economics, equity, and ethics.  Ecological economics is one part of a sane, sustainable, and much needed path forward.
........................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

A Brief Introduction to Ecological Economics - The Sane Path Forward

Preface

If we are to avoid an ecological catastrophe, then a relatively rapid paradigm shift must occur in a number of key areas.  One of those areas is economics, specifically, the neoliberal/neoclassical economic system that currently is dominant worldwide.  In this essay, I'll explain why I think the shift should be to ecological economics (EE).  The Intro here shall be bare bones; subsequent posts will cover in some depth various aspects (including criticisms) of the subject.

For two-plus decades, I've been puzzled (baffled, really) as to why neoliberal thinking views the economic system as separate from Nature.  Any economic system is embedded in the natural world - in ecosystems, in biogeochemical cycles, and is subject to the Laws of Nature, so to speak.  Do we not extract timber, other plant products, common minerals, rare earth minerals, water, fish, etc. from the natural world?  Do we not all breathe air?  Are not all businesses (and consumers) sometimes subject to the whims of flooding, storms, droughts, natural vectors of disease, and the like?  Obviously, the answer to each question above is YES.  Consequently, it makes no sense to me for anyone to believe that any economic system is not a smaller piece of the natural world.  In a very real sense, even though this planet has innumerable ecosystems, Earth itself is one giant ecosystem.  No artificial system is separate from or larger than that.
..................................
Why Ecological Economics (EE) is the Sane Path Forward

William Rees, founding member and past president of the Canadian Society for EE, wrote a brilliant piece five years ago for the Great Transition Initiative:   https://greattransition.org/publication/economics-vs-the-economy  In that essay, he makes the point that EE recognizes the economy as "an open, wholly dependent subsystem of the ecosphere...".  [Emphasis added.]   Natural resources are extracted from, and wastes are injected back into, Nature.  Any material transformations in these processes are subject to Natural Law (e.g., the Laws of Thermodynamics).  In other words, any economy is not outside of or separate from the natural world.

The neoliberal economic paradigm operates as if the opposite were true.  As a result, our world is now mired in a plethora of ecological disasters:  loss of biodiversity, which is damaging ecosystem services to humanity and nonhuman life; habitat destruction causing (among other things) disease proliferation; crucial ecosystem damage (e.g., to wetlands & their critical functions of flood control and removal of toxic substances from water); acidification of the ocean; the sixth mass extinction event on Earth; air pollution; water pollution, and unsustainable use of water; climate disruption; and more.

EE also takes into consideration the concept of ecological constraints on what Bucky Fuller long ago called "Spaceship Earth".  Except for incoming solar energy (and some meteorites), we live in a finite, closed habitat.  It's not growing larger.  Fortunately for life here, there are many, many ongoing regenerative and biogeochemical cycles of materials on this ship.  When we interfere with those cycles beyond sustainability, we threaten our life support system's proper functioning.  When we do not properly manage industrial wastes, and when we overharvest natural resources beyond sustainability, essentially we are committing species suicide.  EE recognizes these problems, but neoliberal economics mostly ignores them.

In addition to those mentioned above, key elements of EE include the following:
1.  a transition to a steady-state (not stagnant), sustainable economy, rather than the current unlimited growth model;
2.  the incorporation and evaluation of natural capital and ecosystem services in the economic system;
3.  socially fair distribution of goods & services;
4.  sustainable development and growth;
5.  local/regional procurement of goods & services whenever possible;
6.  reduction of material "throughput" in the economy;
7.  a transition away from fossil fuels; and,
8.  the incorporation of ecoethics into economics and the economy in general.
..................................
Conclusion

As we navigate through the Anthropocene geologic time period, we must face up to a few facts that we've been avoiding.
1.  As Rees and others have pointed out:  the finite ecosphere in which we live has highly variable, but limited, regenerative and waste assimilating capacities.
2.  Our current economies around the globe, and all the activities associated with them, are destroying significant sections of our natural life support system.
3.  That destruction primarily is due to the pursuance of unlimited growth, unlimited development, and over-consumption.
4.  The main driver of the above pursuits is essentially unlimited population growth.
5.  Despite some positive applications, our technology has not slowed the pace toward impending, massive ecocatastrophe.  Arguably and overall, it has instead increased that pace.
6.  To avert disaster, we are in need of a rapid cultural and ethical evolutionary change in our thinking and behavior.
7.  A significant part of that change should be the shift away from neoliberal economics.
8.  After much examination of the factors involved, I believe we should adopt and implement some version of ecological economics in as many countries as possible.  That would be a big step toward improving and preserving organized human existence on Spaceship Earth.
................................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Violence Erupts - The State-Corporate-Financial Complex Has Failed Us For Decades

Preface
As frustration boils over, in this essay we'll accept the premise that most protesters basically are nonviolent, and most cops essentially are good people.  Plus, the current situation goes way beyond a Racial Crisis and misdeeds by Law Enforcement.
..............................
In the USA and much of the rest of the world, decades of neoliberal policies implemented by the State-Corporate-Financial Complex (the Corporatocracy) have fueled the fires of---
1. a racial crisis,
2. a socio-economic class crisis,
3. an economic crisis,
4. a health crisis,
5. an ecological/environmental crisis, and
6. an ethical crisis.
They are all interrelated.

The policies to which I refer include:  austerity (except for the war & police machinery), the militarization of law enforcement, privatization, deregulation, wage stagnation, an inadequate healthcare system, a gross distortion of "conflict of interest", an ugly conversion of our educational system to one which produces compliant robots, bizarre financialization (which produces little to no employment), so-called "free trade", the almost complete destruction of labor unions, ditto for decent retirement plans, and more.  In addition to all that, too many private & public Powers-That-Be have demonstrated a blatant disregard for both common people and the environment.  Equity seems to have become a long-forgotten concept.  Inequality (including income inequality) is the flavor of the day.  Nature is unimportant.  And so it goes, ad nauseam.

Meanwhile, the ecological crisis of the century--- Climate Disruption ---appears to have been put on the back burner.  On top of that, the gross degradation of necessary biodiversity, the interference with crucial ecosystem functioning, pollution, corporatist propaganda, the suspension of enforcement of EPA regulations, etc., are all ongoing.

In short, neoliberal policies have failed utterly... except for people in the Upper Crust.  The current eruption of violence isn't about only racism toward people of color.  [The response to it has been multiracial.]  It isn't about only a few very recent murders.  This situation has been building for decades, and almost everyone is frustrated and fed-up to the gills.  It's not just about Race, or economics, or police, or inequality.  Perhaps more than anything else, it's also about ethics.

As the Harvard Professor, Cornel West, stated today on Democracy Now, "The American Empire is imploding.".  West also had a telling opinion piece in The Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/01/george-floyd-protests-cornel-west-american-democracy

The time is ripe for a global paradigm shift to ecoethics, ecoliberalism, ecological economics, common sense, and equity.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well