Paper short abstract:

The following paper considers the ethical discussions that arise with radical proposals for a sustainable economics, such as that of Marglin (2013). It examines their theoretical — arguably Malthusian — foundations, and proposes using an actor-centric evolutionary lens to resolve variations.

Paper long abstract:

The Malthusian question appears to have over-delivered; the resolute emphasis in neoclassical growth models on unbridled production is arguably testament to its solution. However, the theoretical and ethical underpinnings of that problem — for example, the acceptance of human imperfectability, of disparate rules to counter regional variances, and of the notion of satisficing — remain highly relevant in understanding equitable global sustainability today.

Radical proposals to address sustainability warrant the complete reorientation of economic rules; in Marglin's model (2013), the aim is to lower collective productive capacity. In a discursive response article, Amdekar and Singh (2014) rather focus on capacity for green technology and extrapolate Marglin's ideas to the extent of a fully accountable, circular model of the economy, based on the naturalist or evolutionary principles (Singer, 1993).

Various ethical systems of thought are considered in the following paper, each of which may expound upon this type of expanded vision of Marglin's. To this end, the paper first reflects on the sustainability problem from its theoretical, arithmetical origins in the pursuit of Malthusian optimality, and then examining how inconsistencies in those ethical ideas may be resolved by using an actor-centric evolutionary lens.