Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[DBT]

As perpetual growth is impossible, we may have a perpetual boom/bust economy. It grows, it crashes, and the growth cycle starts again.

Again, you conflate different kinds of growth. Perpetual economic growth is NOT impossible. Perpetual growth in population is impossible, but not at risk of happening, and perpetual growth in resource use is impossible, but we have barely scratched the surface of the resources that exist, so that is a problem for a future so distant that we will probably be extinct as a species before we need to worry about it.

The limit to economic growth is the limit to growth in value. Please, if you think that there is a hard limit to the growth of value, could you explain what that limit is? Without conflating it with resource use and/or population limits?

Population growth is related to consumption. As is developed nation consumerism, encouraged by corporate interests.

I am aware.

However, neither is related to my questions, which explicitly were ONLY about growth in VALUE, ie 'economic growth'.

I specifically requested that you respond "Without conflating it [growth in value] with resource use and/or population limits", and I guess technically you didn't, because you talked only about those irrelevancies, and ignored purely economic growth altogether.

So, again: The limit to economic growth is the limit to growth in value. Please, if you think that there is a hard limit to the growth of value, could you explain what that limit is?

For example, the value of Van Gogh's famous painting 'Sunflowers' (the fourth version, currently housed at the National Gallery in London) has increased dramatically since it was first sold. This increase in value has used no additional resources - the paint and canvas are unchanged. If the increase is due to human population growth, then I struggle to see how that happened.

So, what is the hard upper limit of the possible future value of that painting, and why?

If you can demonstrate logically that further increases in value for 'Sunflowers' are dependant on the growth of the human population, then I shall be particularly impressed.

Value has limitations. The value of something is governed by what people are willing to pay, their economic circumstances., needs and wants. .

Sure. But what is the constraint that sets an upper limit?

We cannot have more people than we can feed. We cannot extract more fossil fuels than are buried in the Earth's crust. What constrains how much we can value something? Might we run out of numbers?

Disposable income, the perception of value, and desire. When the Barbarians sacked Rome, they cared not a bit for the priceless art they causally destroyed.

The question is, given that perpetual economic and/or population growth is impossible, what do we do when economic and/or population has surpassed carrying capacity and it grinds to a halt?

 

[Swammerdami]

The SUPPLY of 19th century paintings is sharply constrained. The DEMAND for such paintings is driven by the QUANTITY of rich people, which in turn is directly related -- for TWO different reasons -- to the quantity of people.

No it's not. The quantity of rich people is a tiny fraction of the quantity of people, and since the industrial revolution the two quantities are decoupled.

This is also incorrect, but its wrongness is unnecessary to grasp the wrongness of your original blunder.

It's very simple. Scarcity, or items per capita, drives prices. With average $X per capita to spend and population Y, there is $X⋅Y of wealth chasing a constant K number of old paintings. $X⋅Y increases with population obviously (Y IS population) but K does not. (Rare paintings can be "faked" but the non-faked originals retain special ("nostalgic") scarcity. If this becomes a sticking-point in this sub-sub-debate, substitute a less imitable scarce resource for the paintings, e.g. gold!)

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND. When the supply is fixed, but demand increases with population, prices will rise as population rises.

Of course with high technology, old paintings can me mimicked, and one day (soon?) paintings indistinguishable from rare old paintings may flood the market. But that hasn't happened YET.

 

[bilby]

The question is, given that perpetual economic and/or population growth is impossible,

Perpetual economic growth is not impossible, and perpetual population growth is not occurring, so any question that takes either as a given is an irrelevant question.

 

[bilby]

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND.

No, they are not. Prices (in the developed world) are determined, in the most part, by cost plus a margin. And purchasers take those prices, because they want the stuff that's for sale, they want it now, and they don't want to put in any effort.

The idealised world of the economists is not reality. When the price of Chivas Regal whiskey was increased by the manufacturer, demand went up. When concert tickets go on sale, they are snapped up by scalpers, because the prices are waaay below what the market will bear - and those prices are so low because most artists don't want to play to an audience of rich fuckers who are there because it's cool to be seen there, they want to play to an audience who appreciates their art.

Humans are neither rational, nor are they fully (or even well) informed. Both are assumed as prerequisites for the belief that:

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND.

It's just a belief though.

 

[Swammerdami]

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND.

No, they are not. Prices are determined, in the most part, by cost plus a margin. And purchasers take those prices.

The idealised world of the economists is not reality. When the price of Chivas Regal whiskey was increased by the manufacturer, demand went up.

Humans are neither rational, nor are they fully informed. Both are assumed as prerequisites for the belief that:

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND.

It's just a belief though.

Not only is all this WRONG, but it is ABSURDLY wrong in connection with the specific topic of the sub-sub-debate about the price of 19th century paintings. Or do you call the PREVIOUS price paid for the rare painting the "cost", and reseller's hope for profit the "margin"?

But please feel free to have the last word, bilby. All that know much about economics are already laughing at you.

 

[DBT]

The question is, given that perpetual economic and/or population growth is impossible,

Perpetual economic growth is not impossible,

Given a finite planet, how is perpetual economic growth possible? What would perpetual economic growth it look like in practice?

and perpetual population growth is not occurring, so any question that takes either as a given is an irrelevant question.

We have world population of 8.2 billion and still growing, and we appear to be livining unsustainably.

As at some time in the near future population growth must stop, what happens in terms of economic growth?

 

[bilby]

Given a finite planet, how is perpetual economic growth possible?

The planet has fuck-all to do with economic growth. Economies are measured in dollars, not planets. Dollars are fiat currency. Fiat currencies are no more limited in maximum value than are integers.

 

[bilby]

As at some time in the near future population growth must stop

Yes. And we can clearly see that happening.

what happens in terms of economic growth?

Whatever happens, happens. The two things are unrelated. That they both use the word 'growth' does not imply that they are dependant upon each other.

At some time in the near future, I shall drive my car. Then my motion will stop when I reach my destination. What happens in terms of planetary motion? Will the planets also stop in their orbits?

No.

Both things are types of motion; But they are not related.

Population growth and economic growth are both growth. But they are not related.

 

[bigfield]

I don't think it's that useful to measure economic growth in terms of currency, at least in this context.

What aboit a more fundamental question: can we keep increasing the amount of work we do without increasing population?

The only hard limit on the amount of work we do is energy, and that's abundant. And if our population doesn't grow, we can only increase our work output by making machines do the work. And as we do that, GDP or whatever will get bigger.

 

[bilby]

The only hard limit on the amount of work we do is energy, and that's abundant. And if our population doesn't grow, we can only increase our work output by making machines do the work. And as we do that, GDP or whatever will get bigger.

Indeed, and that (not population growth) has been the largest contribution by far to economic growth for far longer than the entire lifetimes of everyone alive today.

Literally nobody remembers a time when population growth was the major driver of economic growth. But a surprising number of people believe that it still is.

 

[DBT]

As at some time in the near future population growth must stop

Yes. And we can clearly see that happening.

what happens in terms of economic growth?

Whatever happens, happens. The two things are unrelated. That they both use the word 'growth' does not imply that they are dependant upon each other.

At some time in the near future, I shall drive my car. Then my motion will stop when I reach my destination. What happens in terms of planetary motion? Will the planets also stop in their orbits?

No.

Both things are types of motion; But they are not related.

Population growth and economic growth are both growth. But they are not related.

That's not the case with economic growth, which is imbedded in the psyche of Government and business leaders, who's purpose is to stimulate growth in terms of a growing economy and increasing profit for the business.

Where, as someone mentioned, stability is not seen as a position, but as stagnation.

That was the point. What do our leader of government and industry - valuing growth - do when both population and economic growth grind to a halt?

Adapt?

 

[bilby]

As at some time in the near future population growth must stop

Yes. And we can clearly see that happening.

what happens in terms of economic growth?

Whatever happens, happens. The two things are unrelated. That they both use the word 'growth' does not imply that they are dependant upon each other.

At some time in the near future, I shall drive my car. Then my motion will stop when I reach my destination. What happens in terms of planetary motion? Will the planets also stop in their orbits?

No.

Both things are types of motion; But they are not related.

Population growth and economic growth are both growth. But they are not related.

That's not the case with economic growth, which is imbedded in the psyche of Government and business leaders, who's purpose is to stimulate growth in terms of a growing economy and increasing profit for the business.

That response appears completely unrealated to the quoted post.

"Population growth and economic growth are not related" cannot sanely yield a response of "That's not the case with economic growth".

"A is not related to B" -> "That's not the case with B" makes exactly zero sense.

 

[unapologetic]

The only hard limit on the amount of work we do is energy, and that's abundant. finite.

 

[bigfield]

The only hard limit on the amount of work we do is energy, and that's abundant. finite.

True, the heat death of the universe is only a few trillion trillion years away.

 

[unapologetic]

True, the heat death of the universe is only a few trillion trillion years away.

I suppose you think we will be able to use every BTU until the very end. We are having production problems, and waste problems, keeping up with our usage even now.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem with a steady state economy is how to make it work in practical terms with real people.

The English economy between about 1200 and 1500CE was pretty close to a steady state, with occasional hiccups due to pandemics and famines.

In that society, opportunities for improving ones lot were few and far between. Every son expected to live the same life as his father, doing the same job, in the same way, and deferring to the same hierarchy. Unless he died young; Or ran away to join the army or the priesthood.

There is a reason why when people describe a modern country as 'medieval', this is not a complement.

Doing the same job as your parents is not even possible today, nor has it been for several generations. New jobs have arisen, and old jobs have disappeared, along with new and old corporations and functions. The Black Death put a sudden end to that, which many claim led to the Renaissance. It is questionable that a steady state economy even existed prior to that. Diocletian tried to stabilize the Roman economy long before then, and failed.

The problem is the blue collar jobs that used to pay family wages are becoming scarce. Hence Starbucks workers unionizing and demanding a living wage. For pouring coffee.

Most will not realize it today, the MS office suite eliminated classes of skilled and semiskilled workers. Same in engineering. Computer aided design software eliminated classes of support groups. Drafting was a skilled job, now engineers do their own drawings on a PC.

PDFs, servers, and software eliminated document control departments.

The idea that new jobs will always replace old jobs is another economic fantasy.

Maybe people do not grasp the scale and enormity of the population and economy.

In the USA every day about 300 million people are fed and get drinking water every day. Add sewers and garbage disposal. Historically staggering. Add the billions in China and India.

I remember a sanitation worker strike in NYC. Within a few days garbage piled up high in the streets.


And now AI.

 

[steve_bank]

I read that FDR was the first to use GDP as a mesure of how well people , mostly as a political talking point. Like Biden touting job creation ignoring that increasing numbers of working people can not meet expenses.

The job of the FED and monetary policy is to promote job growth with low inundation and growth that is not too hot or too cold.

At the street level the measure of the economy is how many hours you have to work to buy things and pay rent .

Biden was tone deaf about it, it is part of what gave Trump an edge in the election.

 

[Bomb#20]

The limit to economic growth is the limit to growth in value. Please, if you think that there is a hard limit to the growth of value, could you explain what that limit is? Without conflating it with resource use and/or population limits?

I am aware.

However, neither is related to my questions, which explicitly were ONLY about growth in VALUE, ie 'economic growth'.

I specifically requested that you respond "Without conflating it [growth in value] with resource use and/or population limits", and I guess technically you didn't, because you talked only about those irrelevancies, and ignored purely economic growth altogether.

So, again: The limit to economic growth is the limit to growth in value. Please, if you think that there is a hard limit to the growth of value, could you explain what that limit is?

For example, the value of Van Gogh's famous painting 'Sunflowers' (the fourth version, currently housed at the National Gallery in London) has increased dramatically since it was first sold. This increase in value has used no additional resources - the paint and canvas are unchanged. If the increase is due to human population growth, then I struggle to see how that happened.

So, what is the hard upper limit of the possible future value of that painting, and why?

If you can demonstrate logically that further increases in value for 'Sunflowers' are dependant on the growth of the human population, then I shall be particularly impressed.

Sure. But what is the constraint that sets an upper limit?

We cannot have more people than we can feed. We cannot extract more fossil fuels than are buried in the Earth's crust. What constrains how much we can value something? Might we run out of numbers?

Economies are measured in dollars, not planets. Dollars are fiat currency. Fiat currencies are no more limited in maximum value than are integers.

In the words of the master, "No. I am talking about value, so obviously their objective is an increase in inflation adjusted dollar value."

Our inability to run out of numbers implies economic growth is unlimited, yes, but only for sufficiently Zimbabwean values of "unlimited". If, when you talk about unlimited growth in value, you mean growth in inflation adjusted dollar value, what is the basket of goods and services that is becoming ever more infinitesimally valued in comparison to "Sunflowers", or to the economy as a whole, or to whatever it is you propose people will value more and more without constraint? And why will that basket of goods and services nobody wants much any more still be an appropriate way to measure the size of an inflation adjusted dollar?

No, they are not. Prices (in the developed world) are determined, in the most part, by cost plus a margin.

That's not a determination; that's a tautology. The margin is by definition price minus cost.

Whatever happens, happens. The two things are unrelated. That they both use the word 'growth' does not imply that they are dependant upon each other.

At some time in the near future, I shall drive my car. Then my motion will stop when I reach my destination. What happens in terms of planetary motion? Will the planets also stop in their orbits?

No.

Both things are types of motion; But they are not related.

That doesn't show they're unrelated, only that causality doesn't flow in one of the directions. If the planets stop in their orbits you will assuredly stop driving your car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prices are determined by SUPPLY and DEMAND. When the supply is fixed, but demand increases with population, prices will rise as population rises.

The problem here is with the notion that the supply is fixed. That only happens in situations where either it's unique (the artwork you mention), or a single manufacturer controls the market (branded versions of products.) In any other situation you find that eventually capacity will increase until the demand price matches the price determined by cost + margin + risk premium (items with variable demand will cost more because there's more idle time during periods of low demand.)

This works both ways, if the price stays below the cost based price capacity will in time decline. For example, rent controlled apartments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question is, given that perpetual economic and/or population growth is impossible,

Perpetual economic growth is not impossible,

Given a finite planet, how is perpetual economic growth possible? What would perpetual economic growth it look like in practice?

Information. Density. Precision.

Not long ago I noticed I still have a 512mb SD card here. (Yes, obviously obsolete--I keep such things around for when I want to give somebody data and not care about the media.) I noticed it while rearranging my stuff because I had bought a couple of 512gb SDXC cards. Is there any more material in the 512gb cards than the 512mb card? No--it's purely higher density due to more precision in manufacture. That's economic progress without increased material use. (Not to mention the new cards have a vast speed advantage.)