ceaseless accumulation?

Gert Kohler raises the interesting issue of ceaseless accumulation in his
discussion of Heilbronner. In the 60's there was a whole "small is
beautiful" movement based around the works of Schumacher's book of the same
name. The idea is that there is an optimal size of a just and ecological
economy. It was clear that it involved a smaller population. Such an
economy would certainly be more eco-friendly. The hard part, it seems to
me, is to maintain technological progress in an economic steady state. I'm
not sure I have any idea as to how to pull that off. The justice problem is
also more difficult since the easiest strategy for helping the poor is a
system in which everyone is getting richer (Clintonomics in the U.S.), if
at rather different rates of increase.  I am not asking about this with any
preconcieved answer in mind, but out of real puzzlement. I like the idea of
a steady state economy and population because of its obvious ecological
benefits, but judicial and technological progress become more difficul
t, and I am willing to give up neither of those; thus the quandry. I would
also prefer a steady state population with an increasing economy and
technological expertise, but that may be asking too much. Thoughts?

Randy Groves

(Kohler's comment I am drawing is below:)

Part 1 (econ-ecol and North-South): "humankind must achieve a secure
terrestrial base for life ... It entails the absence of any socio-economic
order, whether called capitalist or other, whose continuance depends on
ceaseless accumulation ... [sc. and] .... the elimination of the divide
between the poverty-stricken and the wealthy regions of the globe." (p.
116-117)