gical costs we would limit the expansion. This causes the industrialist to realize the costs. Imagine what the true costs of owning a car would be now that all environmental considerations are accounted for. All the solar energy used, and wastes released would reflect the true costs and keep growth in check.. In fact it would bring to a complete halt the rapid growth that we have taken for granted. Ecological reductionism the economic system would be reduced to a minimum and the ecological system would be the dominant. We would be accounting for solar energy, natural resources and waste costs to the environment and not in economic terms. The focus would be the ecological system that we obtain the resources from, and release the wastes into.The steady-state melds the two previous approaches. It places a boundary between the ecosystem and the economic subsystem. This would place strictest importance on where the boundary is placed. And, it would regulate heavily the flows that go in and out of both systems. There would be a balance between the flows. The ecosystems flows would be regulated in terms of the solar energy taken in and the waste heat released. The economic subsystem would be regulated for taking in energy from ecosystem and materials and the waste products and heat released into the ecosystem.How would we do this? First we would have to obtain a constant level of stock resources by minimizing the amount of throughput flows( the energy and material we incorporate, use, and change through production and consumption). This would take the form of zero growth. However not zero development. Although this would bring about unemployment and suffering, it is in order to avoid larger scale suffering and unemployment that we must do this. We know now that we cannot continue to grow as we have been, and if we implement the steady-state approach we can at least save ourselves from the wide scale destruction that is imminent. This steady-s...
