The system’s doomed – multiplicity of factors – err negative, all their pro-growth evidence is epistemologically flawed

Alexander 13 {Samuel, lecturer at the Office for Environmental Programs (University of Melbourne, Australia), Founder of the Simplicity Institute, “Ted Trainer and the Simpler Way: A Sympathetic Critique,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, 25:2, 95-111}

The Global Predicament Trainer’s vision of The Simpler Way can only be understood in relation to his diagnosis of the global situation, which arises out of the “limits to growth” analysis (Meadows, Randers, and Meadows 2004). While the figures and statistics on resource depletion and environmental degradation are well known (e.g., MEA 2005), Trainer maintains that their significance is not generally acknowledged or fully understood. The global economy, he argues, is far beyond the levels of resource and energy use that can be maintained for much longer (Global Footprint Network 2012), let alone extended to all people. Add to this situation the fact that the global human population is expected to increase to nine billion in the next few decades, and the magnitude of our problems becomes clear. “Our way of life”, he concludes, “is grossly unsustainable” (Trainer 2010a, 19). To make matters worse, there is also a mounting body of evidence indicating that the richest nations are experiencing a breakdown of social cohesion and a stagnating quality of life (Wilkinson and Pickett 2010; Lawn and Clarke 2010; Lane 2000), which implies that even if we could globalize and sustain consumer societies over the long term, we may not want to (Alexander 2009, 2011a).1 [CONTINUES TO FOOTNOTE] Trainer dedicates very little attention to the issue of overpopulation, which many will consider a significant weakness to his position. However, even if the world’s population stopped growing today (at 7 billion), the planet would remain dangerously overburdened by high consumption lifestyles, so focusing primarily on consumption has some justification [END OF FOOTNOTE] The problems, however, do not end there. In addition to the ecological and social issues just noted, Trainer joins many ecological economists (e.g., Daly 1996) in highlighting the absurdity of the prevailing attitudes toward economic growth. The growth project continues to define the global development agenda (Purdey 2010), despite evidence indicating that the existing global economy is already exceeding the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet (Global Footprint Network 2012). Although the intricacies of the critique cannot be detailed here, the growth project faces additional challenges from those who argue that the peaking of oil and the bursting of credit bubbles are in the process of undermining the very possibility of continued growth (Heinberg 2011; Alexander 2011b). In line with much socialist theory, the moral that Trainer draws from this analysis is that the affluence enjoyed in rich counties is built on a global economic system that is, at its core, patently unjust. It is a system that enables the rich countries to take far more than their fair share of the world’s resources, while depriving the poorest countries of the resources needed to live even a minimally decent existence. Not only that, rich nations work hard to entrench and maintain their empires using coercive aid contributions, trade power, “structural adjustment packages” and, whenever necessary, military force (Trainer 2010a, ch. 5 and 8). For all these reasons, among others discussed below, Trainer concludes that capitalism cannot be fixed or reformed; it has to be replaced. While Trainer is hardly alone in making that claim, the following sections show that he builds upon it in original ways.