The negatives of constant economic growth were shared by Mill, “If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but not a better or a happier population...” (5) Mill believed that economic growth does not correlate with happier people and that society should not pursue growth for the sake of growth. Herman Daly at the University of Maryland (via the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State) Instead of economic growth that classical liberalists believed in, the steady-state advocates for progress in the sense of economic development and intellectual growth. Economic development is different from economic growth; for example, economic development in a state could look like fixing infrastructure and expanding public transport (2). In a steady-state people are also encouraged to expand intellectually and artistically. If a government chooses a steady-state, workers will be able to work less and have more time to themselves. PAGE 27 VOL. 1, NO. 1 ZEITGEIST As concerns for the environment grew in the 1960’s, the steady-state was introduced as a solution. Most notably, economist and professor Herman Daly began publishing works in the early 1970s that expanded upon Mill’s theory. Daly also believed the steady-state would be able to fix the social inequalities caused by capitalism and the evergrowing concerns of climate change.(2) Daly differed from Mill by believing that aggressive political action would be necessary to establish the steady-state. Daly also expanded on Mill’s ideas by creating distinct policies of the steady-state including: reduced working hours, depletion quotas, wealth regulation agencies, and population regulation agencies (2). The steady-state opposes economic growth for the sake of economic growth, citing that economic growth is unsustainable (2). Economic growth is defined as an increase in consumption and production of goods (2). Instead of economic growth, the steady-state has a constant rate of energy and resources that are used to produce a constant supply of goods (2). Continuous economic growth is unsustainable for the environment because it requires a growing supply of resources, mainly energy and land to produce the products. Due to the growing threat of climate change, continuing at the same level of resource expenditure, not to mention increasing resource use, will cause catastrophic environmental damage (1). Secondly, the steady-state opposes continuous economic growth because it does not benefit the general population. Though the GDP increases, regular people do not see an improvement in the quality of their lives. The increase in GDP that occurs yearly instead serves to increase the fortunes of a top percent while the rest of the public faces economic insecurity and more difficulty climbing classes (1).