o renew itself. By limiting itself, the economy will be non-growing but that does not mean recessionary. There are those who claim that growth is necessary to help the poor. It can be argued that growth helps the poor more recognizably than the elite, but it the wealth of the elite that is growing, not the poor. We have experienced growth in the last two centuries unlike any in the history of the world, yet we still have poverty. The poor are given employment and share in the burdens of the system yet do not equitably share in the benefits.Since growth is being led by technology, there is potential for further inequalities. Technical progress is changing the face of the labour force. Labour now requires more educated workers and less and less uneducated workers, yet opportunities to obtain these qualifications are not becoming more available to the poor, so it seems what eventually comes of this is even more disparity between rich and poor. If development would be good for the poor then it would have to be made up of things the poor need, such as clothing, food, shelter and basic goods. The growth of our times is mostly services, financial products, and not tangibles the poor benefit from. E.F. Schumacher has been an advocate of development without growth. This is almost heresy to so-called progressives with their growth mania tendencies. Instead what has been put forth is a steady-state model for economic and ecological compatibility. 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, but 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. This steady-state model calls for recognizing an optimal level of 'development'. That would b...
