성장을 다시 생각하다: 웰빙 경제를 향하여

### 번영에 대해 다시 생각하기: 웰빙 경제 수용하기
* 🌍 기술과 지식의 발전에도 불구하고 빈곤과 환경오염과 같은 지속적인 글로벌 문제에 직면해 있는 오늘날, **'충분함'이라는 개념**은 매우 중요합니다.
* 📉 현재의 경제 시스템은 웰빙보다 성장을 우선시하기 때문에 **부유한 국가에서는 경제가 침체**되고 생태 발자국이 계속 증가하고 있습니다.
* 📚 1972년에 출간된 '성장의 한계'라는 책에서는 **끊임없는 성장 추구가 사회 붕괴로 이어질 수 있다**고 경고했는데, 지금 우리가 직면하고 있는 현실이 바로 그것입니다.
* 🔄 이러한 붕괴를 막기 위해서는 성장 중심 경제에서 인간과 생태계의 필요를 충족하는 데 초점을 맞춘 **웰빙 경제로의 전환**이 필수적입니다.
* 💡 물질적 발자국이 적은 국가는 여전히 녹색 성장을 추구할 수 있지만, **부유한 국가는 생태계에 미치는 영향을 줄이고 자원을 공평하게 공유하는 데 집중**해야 합니다.
* 🤝 성장 이후의 사회로 전환한다는 것은 **번영을 재정의**하고, 끝없는 소비보다 **연결과 커뮤니티**를 강조하는 동시에 **삶의 질**을 누리는 것을 의미합니다.
* 🔧 개인은 개인 및 직업 생활에서 재생적 관행을 채택하고 **상호 의존과 협력의 내러티브**를 조성함으로써 이러한 변화에 기여할 수 있습니다.
* 🌱 궁극적으로 웰빙 경제를 달성하는 것은 실현 가능할 뿐만 아니라 **공동체와 공동 번영에서 성취감**을 찾는 지속 가능한 미래를 위해 필수적입니다.

가야 헤링턴은 지속 가능한 인간과 생태계의 건강을 위해서는 성장에서 웰빙 경제로 전환하는 것이 중요하다고 강조합니다.

Let’s contemplate the word “enough,” because I think it will play an important role going forward. When I watch the news or scroll my feeds, I keep coming back to the same questions. Why, despite all our knowledge and innovation, do problems like poverty and pollution keep plaguing humanity? Why, despite astonishing advances in renewable energy and resource efficiency, is fossil fuel use at an all-time high, as is our global ecological footprint? And why, despite being responsible for the main part of that footprint, have rich countries been experiencing stagnating, if not decreasing, well-being? I'm a sustainability researcher with a background in econometrics, and I believe the answer lies in the fact that solving poverty, caring for nature or fostering well-being is not the ultimate goal of our current economic system. Its goal is growth. Many take this for granted. But growth wasn't considered a moral goal for most of history. It was only officially measured

around the middle of last century through GDP. It then shifted into the core of our economic thinking and from there into policymaking and our collective psyche. Growth became synonymous with progress. Things went fast after that. Extinction rates went up, resource use and waste exploded. Some warned early on about the dangers of exponential growth on a finite planet. In 1972, a team of MIT scientists created a first-of-its-kind world model consisting of over 200 interconnected variables. With it, they analyzed the question I mentioned earlier: why problems like poverty and pollution persist. They published a book on their findings called The Limits to Growth, in which they warned that continuing the business-as-usual growth pursuit would lead to societal breakdown, setting in around now. Breakdown doesn't mean the end of humanity, but a steep decline in well-being nonetheless. The book was a bestseller, but you may have never heard of it.

The authors were derided as doomsayers, and their message, over time, buried. A few years back, I compared their now decades-old projections with what's happened since. I found empirical data closely aligning with the model's business-as-usual scenario, which shows growth grinding to a halt around 2040 or so, followed by steep declines in things like food production and well-being. My analysis also revealed that this breakdown could be avoided by letting go of the growth pursuit and redirecting resources to meet human needs and protect nature directly. This indicates that what we do in the next few years will determine our well-being for the rest of this century. And this now-or-never moment in history is up to us. Technology by itself will not save us, despite aspirational talks of decoupling, the idea that the economy can grow without resource use and pollution growing along with it. There's no decoupling,

certainly not for a full impact on the Earth. Raw materials consumption has been around 1.2 kilograms per dollar GDP for two decades, while biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and plastic pollution are all worsening. But even just considering carbon emissions, which per dollar GDP have decreased, sufficient absolute decoupling, which is what we'd need, is nowhere in the data. Our choice isn't whether to keep growing or not. It's whether the end of growth will come by design or disaster. Either we choose our own limits, or we'll have them forced upon us. Now that humankind has reached global, unparalleled power, “Limits to Growth” confronts us with a question we’ve never faced before: Who do we want to be, and what world do we want to live in? Here's where enough comes in. If I were to describe the mantra we need in the 21st century with one word,

it would be enough. Enough as in no more. This is the limit. Say, a planetary boundary. And enough as in sufficient, juxtaposing it to this exhausting grind for ever more and instead invoking a notion of sharing, as in enough for each. I believe the only realistic plan to avoid breakdown and maintain global well-being lies in this mindset shift from never enough to enough for each. Change the goal of our economic system from growth to human and ecological well-being. A well-being economy. What would that look like? We have an idea because we already pretend that's what we have. No vision statement reads: A world where growth perpetuates at all costs indefinitely. It talks about how this organization contributes to society, because that's what we feel it should do. In a well-being economy, business activities, government policies and citizen behavior are aimed at meeting our physical, social and spiritual needs.

within planetary boundaries. It doesn't mean we're anti-growth; it just means we're more selective about it. We differentiate between what should and should not grow, depending on whether it contributes to well-being. This implies different pathways towards a well-being economy for low- and high-income countries. At small material footprints, growth more often correlates with well-being, including through poverty reduction. So poorer countries below their share of Earth’s carrying capacity may still need green growth, economic expansion driven by clean technologies. In richer countries, what has decoupled from growth is happiness, so they can and should focus on reducing ecological footprints to sustainable levels while safeguarding everyone's livelihood by sharing more equally. Let me stress because I hear this misconception a lot. Decentering growth doesn’t mean shrinking the economy until it crashes. It means reducing our environmental impact to within a safe operating space for life as we know it.

That's not going back to a poorer past. That's changing the forward direction away from a cliff. We'll still have houses with fridges, good schools, health care, profitable businesses. We'll go to jobs and parties. But social norms and economic dynamics will change. We'll redefine what has value or what work we call productive. With our needs securely met, this trade-off between social and environmental benefits, which we often take as given, dissolves. Sharing more equally means less income and wealth inequality, improving social cohesion and reducing wasteful, conspicuous consumption. Efficiency gains are used to work less instead of produce more. By not pursuing growth at all costs, we can avoid a lot of costs, like all the expenditure on health care and cleanups due to pollution. Moving to a post-growth society isn't choosing permanent recession. It's flexing our free will to change our notion of prosperity.

from ever more to better. How probable is this economic transformation? It's feasible. That's half the answer. We know what promotes well-being. In fact, policies like zero tolerance on child poverty or GDP alternatives are exchanged already in WIEGO, a partnership of self-proclaimed well-being governments. Dozens of cities are piloting post-growth frameworks to operate within explicit social and environmental boundaries, with practices like universal basic incomes. I love how companies that put people and planet legally above profit generate billions each year. How communities are taking back stewardship of their commons with co-ops and renewable energy, water, or food. Or how recent experiments with shorter workweeks for the same pay were so successful that most of those companies made it permanent. We also have the technological capabilities, which will be pivotal, once directed towards the right goal. This redirection is indispensable. But of course, I'm regularly told the techno-optimist argument

that it's not. And I always respond. Let's say we could replace the dying bee colonies with robot pollinators. Why do that if we can also advance regenerative agriculture, which doesn't cause insecticide? Why dedicate our innovative powers to tree-planting drones when we can also use that thinking to redesign our economy so that existing forest isn't cut down? And that brings me to the other half of the answer, to how probable a well-being economy is. It's promise. We'd have less stuff, but more of what we need. Connection. Maintaining a sense of community and purpose is hard in this current economic system, which treats us as selfish, never satisfied consumers. Research shows we're not just capable of caring for life, we derive joy and meaning from it. We can't be truly happy unless those around us thrive too. This economic transformation wouldn't be a capitulation to grim necessity. We'd want to do it even if we were not facing ecosystem collapse,

because a well-being economy fits much better with who we want to be and a world we long to live in. So we started with these global problems and found that changing our economic system is imperative, but also feasible. And no sacrifice, but simply a letting go of what's no longer serving us to find belonging in a post-growth world of embraced interdependence. If that sounds spiritual, that's what a well-being economy delivers. Physical sufficiency, social abundance, and spiritual wealth, including the peace of mind that this prosperity can last. Thank you. (Applause) Logan McClure Davda: Thank you, Gaya. So you spoke tonight about broader economic transformation. But what can we as individuals do? Gaya Herrington: Yes. You have to find your unique influence in the system. So that starts by changing the system's narrative. We've been told the story of separation. We are selfish, violent beings, doomed to exploit our commons,

So the best thing we can hope for then is technology to save us. So you would have to start by working from a different narrative: the story of interdependence, in which we are nature. Once our needs are securely met, we rejoice in contributing to this web of life that we're all part of. So you talk about bringing it back to the personal level. That's actually very emotional work. It's deeply personal. But of course, it cannot stay there. So then the next step is to build out this new narrative in the system's structures. And that very much depends on where you are. If you're in a corporation, look into regenerative business models. If you're in government, look into well-being government policies. If you're an investor, see if you can transition from ESG assessments, which are relative, to the absolute assessments against social foundations and planetary boundaries. If you're an entrepreneur, look into employee ownership.

Everyone, citizens, buy at not-for-profit companies. See if community solar makes sense for you. So there's so many things that you can do, but it very much depends on where you are. But there is one general piece of advice that I can give, and that's: work together. And remember that systems change is not linear. People do this very disjointedly at first, and then over time they build connections until a critical minority mass is reached, typically around 25 percent or so. And only then does the majority come along because the system change becomes self-reinforcing. Now there's no guarantee that that will happen for the economic transformation that I'm proposing, but if it does, it will have been because people like you that are gathered here today contributed to that change in their own unique way. So thank you for listening. LMD: Thank you, Gaya. (Applause)

Will the End of Economic Growth Come by Design — or Disaster? | Gaya Herrington | TED

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. You're welcome to link to or embed these videos, forward them to others and share these ideas with people you know.

TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/our-policies-terms/ted-talks-usage-policy. For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at https://media-requests.ted.com

지속 가능성에서 '충분함'의 역할

우리의 지식과 혁신에도 불구하고 빈곤과 오염과 같은 지속적인 글로벌 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 '충분'이라는 단어가 매우 중요합니다.

현재의 경제 시스템은 이러한 문제를 해결하는 것보다 성장에 우선순위를 두기 때문에 환경 파괴와 부유한 국가의 복지 정체를 초래하고 있습니다.

1972년 MIT 과학자들의 '성장의 한계' 모델은 무분별한 성장으로 인한 사회 붕괴를 경고했으며, 그 예측은 현재의 추세와 일치하여 인간의 필요를 충족하고 자연을 보호하기 위해 초점을 전환해야 한다는 것을 시사합니다.

성장에 대해 다시 생각하기: '충분함'의 필요성

원자재 소비와 환경 문제가 악화되고 있으며, 탄소 배출량이 경제 성장과 절대적으로 분리되지 않는 것으로 나타났습니다.

'충분함'이라는 개념은 21세기의 기본 원칙으로 제안되어 무한한 성장에서 지구적 한계 내에서 공동의 웰빙으로 전환할 것을 옹호합니다.

웰빙 경제는 기업, 정부, 시민이 신체적, 사회적, 정신적 필요를 충족하는 데 초점을 맞추고 웰빙에 대한 기여도에 따라 성장에 선택적으로 접근하는 경제를 의미합니다.

포스트 성장 사회로의 전환은 가치와 생산성을 재정의하여 사회적, 환경적 혜택을 증진하는 것을 목표로 합니다.

이러한 변화는 소득과 부의 불평등 감소, 사회적 결속력 향상, 낭비적인 소비 감소로 이어질 수 있습니다.

이미 여러 도시와 기업에서 포스트 성장 프레임워크와 관행을 시범 운영하며 이러한 경제 전환의 가능성을 입증하고 있습니다.

죽어가는 꿀벌 군집을 로봇 수분 매개자로 대체하는 것은 재생 농업을 발전시키고 기존 산림을 보호하기 위해 경제를 재설계하는 것보다 덜 효과적입니다.

웰빙 경제는 물질적 소유보다는 타인을 돌보고자 하는 인간의 본질적 욕구에 부합하는 연결, 공동체, 목적에 더 많은 가치를 부여합니다.

이러한 경제적 변화는 희생이 아니라 더 이상 우리에게 도움이 되지 않는 것을 버리는 것이며, 육체적 풍요, 사회적 풍요, 정신적 풍요로 이어집니다.

시스템 변화에서 기술의 역할과 상호 의존성

상호의존의 내러티브는 자연과의 연결과 생명의 그물망에 기여하기 위한 우리의 필요를 충족시키는 것의 중요성을 강조합니다.

시스템 구조에서 새로운 내러티브를 구축하려면 각자의 역할에 따라 재생 비즈니스 모델, 웰빙 정부 정책, 직원 주인의식을 탐구해야 합니다.

시스템 변화를 주도하기 위해서는 협업과 다각적인 노력이 중요하며, 자기 강화적인 변화를 위해서는 약 25%의 임계 소수 집단이 필요합니다.