tate model calls for recognizing an optimal level of 'development'. That would be a level of consumption. Where the harvesting rates are not larger than the regeneration of natural agricultural products and their products. And a level that allows the environment to assimilate the wastes we produce and to renew the capacity of the environment to do this. Some have argued that there will always be an infinite supply of resources. They failed to see the growth the propose is exactly what has diminished the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate and renew these resources. We should not use nonrenewable resources faster than substitutes are created.Champions of the poor countries are correct that limiting growth as proposed by the steady-state model would hurt underdeveloped countries. The steady-state models answer for those countries is simply to control population rather than to promote growth. Since it is impossible to attain a level of living like the U.S. that goal in impossible regardless. Also there should be a redistribution of wealth among the underprivileged. By strict economic standards alone we see that the marginal utility of developed countries is extremely low. Poorer countries would get much more use of development. If we try to maximize utility among the poor we would actually increase total world utility with a minimal of growth.Of all the research done on this topic the underlying issue I feel is that we need to reduce consumption and production. These views are unpopular with many people and on many levels. The growth of today is only a reflection of the unlimited wants of the people. One of the reasons that economics isn't an exact science. Human being are predisposed to be irrational in their wants. In science we learn that an organism develops a relationship with its environment, that is beneficial to and the habitat it is dependent upon. Parasites consume and 'grow' out of control, they have no checks. They completel...
