Paperback , pages. More Details Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Enough Is Enough , please sign up. Is it a good book? Vivek Vivek Yes, definitely. As the question is quite broad, so it the answer. See 1 question about Enough Is Enough…. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews.
See a Problem?
Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. May 15, Zora rated it did not like it. Well-intentioned , but an awful lot of nonsense. I'm not sure how he's going to get people to quit breeding; we've known about overpopulation for decades and people just keep breeding more. There's also a creepy -to me- romanticization of poor countries and their noble savages. A lot of the advice here might work in some hippie college town, briefly, but it's really not a solution.follow site
Enough is enough: Recent child deaths have Harris County sheriff riled up
The beginning of the solution must be negative population growth, and the only ways that I can see to achieve that are through pretty totalitarian measures, or by letting pandemics spread unchecked. For instance in the United States we give people a tax bonus for having children If we were serious about ZPG , we'd penalize them. If we can't do that one, tiny, nonviolent thing and find the will within ourselves to do it, there is little hope.
If we cannot agree, right now, to nationalize gasoline and tax it three dollars per gallon , and use that money to build mass transit infrastructure , how will we have the balls to make even more radical changes? It is as if he is ignoring human nature, or thinking all humans will behave as well educated white first world people living in upper-middle-class comfort and able to afford to shop at Whole Foods.
When I took this book out of the library, an old man tried to get me to sign a petition ending the two dollar per household charge for development of solar power here, his argument being that that money "went into the pockets of rich people, the only people who could afford solar. Greed and stupidity have taken us to this point , and a book like this doesn't make me feel less cynical and pessimistic; it makes me feel more so because it's just so clueless.
I don't know the solutions Mar 24, David Kimball rated it liked it. So it is an apologetic for steady-state economics. Wikipedia As such, it deals with ecological economics at the macro level and integrates all the systems necessary for a global approach. It defines economics as a means of controlling all the systems within our ecosystem rather than define economics strictly in terms of the managing of the scarce resource of only money. This book does a good job of sounding the alarm that there are many problems with the current economic systems.
This book is meant to provoke in a good sense discussion around its own policies and provide fodder for discussions around the policies of governments and corporations, but it totally ignores the NGO and grassroots sector. It is written in an informal style and although there are many facts, figures, charts and references to economic terms, it is written to be understood by laymen. Because our planet is finite, we cannot consume indefinitely and so it is our responsibility to see what and how much we should consume in order to be sustainable.
It is acknowledged that reducing our wants only applies to those who already have enough so that some poorer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Degrowth State first to a Desirable Growth State while we richer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Growth State first to a Desirable Degrowth State.
Enough is Enough!
Several strategies are presented for passing through these States to reach the point of SSE. The first strategy is to limit the use of materials and energy to sustainable levels. This cutting back should be done in a way to assure that we achieve a more equitable distribution of income and wealth and should include a comprehensive monitoring system. What is needed in changing to these States is heavy cooperation across all levels of governments. Governments need to experience a paradigm shift from one of competition and control to one of collaboration and cooperation.
It is important to stabilize population through compassionate and non-coercive means. Another recommendation for this strategy is to change immigration policy to achieve equal levels of immigration and emigration. Another strategy is to achieve a more favorable distribution of income and wealth or assets. The key here is to put control of companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations into the hands of the people who work in them, use their services, or live in the communities affected by them.
This is known, in other approaches, as creating a paradigm change from focusing on the shareholders to focusing on all of the stakeholders. Probably one of the most controversial strategies addressed in this book is to reform the monetary and financial systems. It is evident that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. But if there are to be limits on economic growth, then there should be limits to debt and limits to investments. The book promotes a neutral international currency that is not controlled by any single country or group of countries.
As stated above, we need a comprehensive monitoring system to replace our GDP as the GDP does not measure the values of our culture — only the output of our society. It suggests a measurement called the Gross National Happiness GNH monitor which is currently being used in a few areas. The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of equitable and sustainable socioeconomic development; Preservation and promotion of cultural values; Conservation of the natural environment; and the Establishment of good governance. The next strategy is to secure meaningful jobs and full employment.
It states that guaranteed jobs are included in Article However it did not mention that although the United States had ratified the political section of the UN UDHR, it had refused to ratify the social section which includes this right. The book gives good examples of less-work societies by presenting the European work-time policies which are much more favorable to the workers than here in the US. Instead of placing the ROI to shareholders as the highest value, businesses need to address the value they create in the social and environmental sectors.
This is to have the businesses driven by purpose to the ecosystem and society rather than duty to the shareholders. There are several business models already in existence in the US such as the Low-profit Limited Liability Company L3C and the B-Corporation where dividends to shareholders are limited and where the purpose is for the community or wider public interest. After describing these strategies, the book details what is necessary to advance the Steady-State Economy.
One of the biggest ways is to change consumer behavior to seek personal values rather than status. For members in our society to achieve well-being, instead of relying on consumerism, they should strive to connect, be active, take notice, keep learning, and give. I would include a call for controls on the lobbyists and the influencers of Congress as needed for such a transformation. Since this transformation is global, it requires all the nations to work together as one nation cannot address these issues as an isolate.
The book discusses the need for the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization to be democratized and work together collaboratively. It is evident, though, that the problems we are currently experiencing today are of such a magnitude that the solution needs to be a complete transformation rather than just a fix.
It would be great to see some dialogues on steady-state economics where these as well as other approaches could be discussed and especially if they could lead to some deliberations on actions. David Kimball What is it? Why is it a good idea? And, most daunting, how do we arrive at a steady-state economy? This clearly laid out, easy-to-read book has answers to these questions. A steady-state economy is, basically, an economy that prioritizes enough over more.
In a steady-state economy, resource consumption and population remain stable while well-being is prioritized over consumption. Rather than changing quantitatively, a steady-state economy changes qualitatively through innovation and development, rather than through growth. A steady-state economy is sustainable and equitable minimal to no unemployment.
Sounds like something to strive for, especially when compared with the current business-as-usual scenario, in which our ecological footprint dwarfs the available resources, people trample over each other to get to Black Friday specials, ever-increasing GDP is king, and the world population is projected to grow another 1. Is a steady-state economy even feasible, and how do we get there? Each chapter begins with an engaging anecdote. The book is meant for and is totally accessible to a reader with a noneconomics background like me.
The only economics course I took was through UC Extension. But I digress… The authors gracefully maneuver through some tricky areas such as population stabilization which is a must but a politically unpalatable, controversial issue. As alternatives, they mention other measures like family planning e. In that context, they mention this very interesting statistic of 80 million. These soap operas are not only entertaining but are meant to prompt people to think about their reproductive options.
Half of Ethiopians tuned into one such radio serial regularly. After the two years of airing that show ending in , the Ethiopian fertility rate dropped from 5. After having read this, I am convinced not only that this is necessary, given the way our planet is headed, but that it is possible. It will not be easy, and the authors are realistic about which policy suggestions are more palatable than others. Some will require seismic shifts in the way we think and live. But here is a prescription for a very hopeful future. Oct 15, Ryan rated it liked it Shelves: environment.
Although the goals are laudable, the primary one being to propose a transition to a steady state or no-growth economy, this ends up reading like a laundry list of good-to-have items alongside the main one, like equitable wealth, socially conscious business structures that I found to be extraneous to the core concept. The word utopia is never mentioned, but one gets the sense that the authors are aiming to create such a society where everyone is fulfilled, everyone is equal in wealth , nature ab Although the goals are laudable, the primary one being to propose a transition to a steady state or no-growth economy, this ends up reading like a laundry list of good-to-have items alongside the main one, like equitable wealth, socially conscious business structures that I found to be extraneous to the core concept.
The word utopia is never mentioned, but one gets the sense that the authors are aiming to create such a society where everyone is fulfilled, everyone is equal in wealth , nature abounds and people are satisfied to live lives close to the land and very localized with a surplus of leisure time. It is said there is no choice other than to be an optimist, and I praise this book for espousing and cheering the cause for a sustainable future, but it is also said that the devil is in the details, and HOW we can achieve this tampers such optimism.
Indeed, it requires a cultural shift that changes the aim from More to Better, but I can't help but wonder if the former is made out to be so evil, why do corporations and the elite continue to self aggrandize at the expense of the majority? The steady state economy is an interesting and compelling idea, but it will remain a purely academic one I suspect.
After all, we primates are born to live in a social hierarchy, so the goal of equality will remain elusive. The question then is, can we get to a steady state sustainable model while retaining an unequal society? Mar 30, Gerry Flanagan rated it liked it. A critical topic, but not enough detail.
Enough is Enough Voter Project
When someone says that a model shows that a steady state economy is feasible, I want to know the details of the model. However, a very good collection of references, including internet references I found valuable. May 18, Stella rated it liked it. Quite thought-provoking but the solutions are just too unrealistic. Dec 22, Randall Wallace rated it really liked it.
Get dollars for each one dollar put in. By , it was 30 to 1. By , it was 15 to 1. Modern civilization requires an EROI of 10 to 1; guess where we are headed? Wind Turbines are 18 to 1, solar panels 7 to 1 and biodiesel a whopping 1. For a steady state economy to work, for example, banks could no longer issue debt.
If contraception was easily available worldwide, population could stabilize naturally. Noam is a fan of the steady state economy and even wrote a blurb on the back of this book. A critically important topic which few are writing about — the future of mankind. Sep 18, Anna Kladova rated it it was amazing. I am not saying that's everything you have to know about sustainable economics and degrowth. But these are the basics, which anyone living nowadays is obliged to know.
I am consciously using "obliged". That's a manifesto against the consumerist religion ruling our everyday lifes, our ideals from childhood on, against the obsession with the GDP growth, against the today's monetary principles allowing banks to create money out of thin air through loans, against the tyranny of the corporations whic I am not saying that's everything you have to know about sustainable economics and degrowth. That's a manifesto against the consumerist religion ruling our everyday lifes, our ideals from childhood on, against the obsession with the GDP growth, against the today's monetary principles allowing banks to create money out of thin air through loans, against the tyranny of the corporations which are in fact the main force determining politics in our society.
The book is short and wrote in a really accessible manner. Please take your time to get informed, because even those of us with high IQ scores are not secured against errors if they fail to get the right information at the right time. Feb 11, Ecoute Sauvage rated it did not like it.
- KEY CAMPAIGNS:.
- Raising Up and Mentoring the Next Generation: The Heart of a Godly Father.
- How To Draw This Hot Rod In Six Easy Steps;
I found the concept behind this book appalling - never in the history of humanity has there been a "steady-state" economy, and none can materialize because these authors say so. Unless they have suspended all biological systems laws as well as the laws of thermodynamics the above applies to ALL systems, not just human societies. Nov 07, Andy Nousen rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites.
Offers a rational, equitable framework for the future of life on a finite planet. Aug 09, Keith Akers rated it really liked it. This is a milestone book in an area new to much of even the well-educated public: the world of finite resources. But it's also a tough book to review, because there are so many different possible audiences.
I'll summarize my review first, then go into the details. This is a long review for which I apologize; in due course, I will sort out my thoughts on this subject and put it on my blog or publish it somewhere. The main audience for my review is people who already get "limits to growth. Common sense dictates that there are "limits to growth," and that our economy cannot grow forever, as the title of the well-known report to the Club of Rome indicated.
But conventional economics and political consensus dictates the exact opposite. As a consequence, there has been a lack of discussion of this reality. This is our dilemma, and the dilemma addressed directly by "Enough is Enough. The first part introduces the problem of the growth economy. The second part discusses possible strategies: how to deal with limiting resource use, population growth, inequality, debt, commerce, unemployment, and measurement of economic goods.
I thought the second part was the strongest part, even when I didn't agree with everything they said, because the authors clearly understand the territory. In the third part they discuss plans for action. This is the weakest part because, basically, there are key problems with the concept of a steady-state economy that neither they nor probably anyone else has resolved.
Like, at precisely what level will the steady-state economy function? When you get into the details, you realize that to resolve this question is not just academic nit-picking; it is a really big deal. Even here there are some interesting ideas, but the ideas are a bit vague. Evaluating the Book Who is the audience for this book? And who is the audience for this review? There are obviously multiple potential audiences, so I'm going to try to imagine how they all might react to this book.
Generally I thought the book was good, but it clearly has some problems, and what we do about the book depends on who your audience is. At some point, we will need to address these difficulties, or we won't be able to make any further progress on this issue. But we aren't at that point yet.
So here are the issues, and they are biggies: what is a steady-state economy, and is it really necessary? Let me preface this by saying that I've read Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications , and am a firm believer in the need for ecological economics. The authors cheerfully admit that there are many problems unresolved regarding a steady-state economy an economy which does not grow -- like how, for example, it would work. In fact, it is unclear what a "steady-state" economy should even be called.
They discuss the advice of Franny Armstrong, who when asked what advice they would have to raise the profile of steady-state economics, responded "change the name" p. To begin with, there are a number of minor quibbles that I have with the book. To deal with unemployment, they seem to be bent on job-sharing or government make-work programs rather than on a basic guaranteed income. The chapter on population offered only conventional formulas about educating women.
The chapter on debt completely ignored Debt: The First 5, Years. The authors don't understand food issues and the importance of veganism my pet peeve with environmental authors generally. The concluding chapter on what we should do about the situation offered vague prescriptions such as "get people interested," "combine science and art," and "have fun.
What is a steady-state economy? A steady-state economy neither grows nor shrinks. Inequality, the authors make clear, would be significantly reduced. But at what standard of living and with what population would the world's population exist? Are we talking a substantially smaller human population with a modern European standard of living? Or perhaps the technology of the early 19th century, before the modern automobile and airplane came into existence? Or is it back to the middle ages, technology-wise? Inquiring minds want to know. And, actually, the book gives several different answers. Looks like we'll have to take a pay cut, or undertake some serious population reduction measures.
But on p. Unemployment, greenhouse gas emissions, and poverty all fall as well. This seems to imply that while the economy won't grow, we'll still be physically better off in and thereafter than we were in On the other hand, the chart on p. It suggests that the world as a whole will be in a steady state, but that some countries the more developed ones, like the U. This seems to imply that the GDP per capita of Canada will decline all other things being equal relative to the level of And this is only the beginning of the discussion.
A staple observation of many environmentalists is that we are in a state of "overshoot" -- that we are actually drawing down critical natural resources, and we need to cut back resource consumption to be sustainable. The relationship between resource consumption and the economy is complex, but if the relationship is fairly straightforward as it likely is , then decreased resource consumption would seem to imply a declining economy, not a steady-state economy. Still others, such as Gail Tverberg, have said that no steady-state economy is possible except at a fairly low level like, basically, the technology available in or thereabouts.
I personally am quite skeptical about an all-electric economy supporting anything approaching the contemporary American standard of living for any except a small elite much, much smaller than the current elite. I don't think we can prosaically assume that we can just draw the line at the economy and say that we're staying there -- or even , or This whole thing needs to be thought out from the bottom up, not the top down and thus the need to address food before addressing more weighty things like transportation and communications.
These pictures of a possible future economy are dramatically different. I don't think it is realistic to write a book about a steady-state economy and not define the size at which such an economy would function. We would allow for some inequality, of course, although ideally that would be substantially reduced, as the authors advocate.
So we wind up finishing the book not having the most basic understanding about what this steady-state economy is going to look like. This is what is going to happen. As society continues to deteriorate around us, there will be endless discussions, arguing, and hand-wringing. In the end, nothing will be done. The result will fall into place.
This may mean a complete collapse of modern civilization and a reversion to something like BCE, or even the disappearance of all life on earth in a climate change apocalypse such as that envisioned by James Hansen at the end of Storms of my Grandchildren. Or it will be determined by chance. Or it will be determined by a small minority which will have thought out these questions outside of the realm of politics, figured it out on their own, and simply maneuvered or forced it into place.
Unfortunately, this last alternative seems to be our best chance. Anyone want to give it a shot? He says he's leaving you. You should seize control, protect yourself and any personal assets or credit cards, and do the leaving yourself. The last six bold markers are definite indicators that the relationship is in its last days.
Therefore, it's time for you to take a stand because in reality you have nothing to lose, except your dignity, your self-respect, and your precious, precious time. I know that you are probably afraid to confront him. Maybe you even feel terror or dread. Facing loss is one of the hardest things we ever do. So it is important to lay the foundation emotionally to give yourself motivation, determination, and the courage to move forward.
Do not take a Cost-of-Loss-Stand if you are in a potentially violent or physically abusive relationship. It could be very dangerous and your safety is of primary concern! I devote considerable time there to help ensure your safety and that of your children if you're dealing with a violent partner. Different people want different things at different times. If I could just make an observation, it seems like too many women want marriage when they or the man they want to be married to are not really ready.
Too many men want to remain single until much later in life, when an invisible switch turns on, then suddenly they grasp on to the next woman, and she's "it. I have seen guys who have lived with a woman for ten or twelve years, even had kids with them, but then left and immediately married the first other woman that crossed their path.
If you're a woman and you want a certain guy to commit, there really is nothing you can do until he's reached his "switch" point. You can tell him what you want, but if that is not what he wants at the same time, it's not happening. The best you can do is to tell him what you want out of life, and if he doesn't want to be with you in that way, you have no alternative but to leave him and go find someone who actually wants to be with you. Coercing, manipulating, or pressuring someone into marrying you never leads to any good end. The guy that doesn't affirmatively want to marry you is going to feel trapped in one way, but is going to feel free to cheat on you in another way, rationalizing that he never wanted to be married to you anyway, so if you leave him it's no big whoop.
Different guys have different switch points. You might pick one whose switch point is at a much younger age. But most guys are older when that happens. Especially now in this age of far extended adolescence, at least age So, if you are a younger woman and the guy you picked won't commit to you, go play the field among older never married guys to maximize your chances of hitting the guy's switch point.
My husband is 20 years older than I am. When we connected he was a 38 year old never married bachelor, he had had some fairly long term relationships, but it was a four month beeline to the altar with me, all his idea. I never worried much about being thrown over for a younger woman, because I was the younger woman! Thanks Ana. Your observation is quite accurate. It's "different strokes for different folks. For a lot people, "living together" is not a feasible intermediate step. So it's not "living together or BTW, what's with this sexist "he" business about the next step?
Shouldn't it be the grammatically fractured "they" or contrived "ze" or something to be lockstep PC consistent? Verbal abuse is such an unkind tactic in relating. I was really disappointed in reading this article because as usual the victim of the issue in this relationship is the man. Thanks Drew for sharing. As PC became more prevalent I went to "they". That had its own writing issues.
I've come full circle today since much of my audience are heterosexual women. Nevertheless, your criticism is valid and I will make more of an effort in the future. I've decided to expand this post into a three-part series. Part 2 will deal with the Cost-of-Loss-Talk, a specific non-blaming way of bringing up your issues in the relationship. It's been shown clinically to have positive results for both partners. Research shows that happy couples view each other through a glass half-full. Begin by saying that things have to change. State the problem without blame.
Back Psychology Today. Back Find a Therapist. Back Get Help. Back Magazine. Subscribe Issue Archive.
Related Enough is Enough
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved