We Need More Kids

[lostone]

If you MAKE it, it implies profit. SELLING X dollars isn’t MAKING X dollars, in ‘Murkin biz vernacular

I don't speak 'Murkin. I am fluent in Strine, Yorkshire, and BBC English, and have a working knowledge of Indian Business English and Singaporean Business English. Five languages called English is more than enough for me.

One version I cannot speak or understand is Irish Taxi driver, as spoken in Dublin. We were lucky that they understood us.

 

[bigfield]

Why does it matter how many layers there are between a thought or idea and its practical application?

View attachment 51241

The point here is that perpetual economic growth is an illusion, and thought alone does not generate economic growth,

Basically:

''The global material footprint has grown in lockstep with the exponentially rising global economy (GDP) since the industrial revolution. This is largely because of egregious consumption by the super-affluent in a socioeconomic system founded on growth without limits. Can we resolve this fundamental conflict between the quest for limitless growth and the consequent environmental destruction?

''Whether it is principles of classical, quantum or solid state physics or thermodynamics, each places different but inexorable constraints on technological solutions. Basically, physical principles that have allowed incredible technological leaps over the past century also inevitably limit them.

We might consider that extensive recycling of materials would offset efficiency limits. Recycling is crucial; however, while glass and metals can be recycled almost indefinitely without loss of quality, materials such as paper and plastic can be recycled only a few times before becoming too degraded.''

Looks like the chatbot had an error and hit a GOTO post_talking_point instruction.

 

[Toni]

There is a white elephant in the room, which is to say, the wrong people are having kids. This is not too far away from a bunch of wannabe tough guys parading with Tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us".

The wailing about economic realities and the rational choices it presents to young parents, misses the point. Elon and his crew have no interest improving circumstances which would make having more children a more appealing choice. What they want, but aren't willing to sacrifice to to obtain it, is a larger white working poor class. This would relieve them of the indignity of having to a van load of brown people stop by once a week to mow the lawn and trim the hedges.

Big agree re: the words white and elephant

 

[DBT]

Why does it matter how many layers there are between a thought or idea and its practical application?

View attachment 51241

The point here is that perpetual economic growth is an illusion, and thought alone does not generate economic growth,

Basically:

''The global material footprint has grown in lockstep with the exponentially rising global economy (GDP) since the industrial revolution. This is largely because of egregious consumption by the super-affluent in a socioeconomic system founded on growth without limits. Can we resolve this fundamental conflict between the quest for limitless growth and the consequent environmental destruction?

''Whether it is principles of classical, quantum or solid state physics or thermodynamics, each places different but inexorable constraints on technological solutions. Basically, physical principles that have allowed incredible technological leaps over the past century also inevitably limit them.

We might consider that extensive recycling of materials would offset efficiency limits. Recycling is crucial; however, while glass and metals can be recycled almost indefinitely without loss of quality, materials such as paper and plastic can be recycled only a few times before becoming too degraded.''

Looks like the chatbot had an error and hit a GOTO post_talking_point instruction.

What about the ecological sustainability of perpetual economic growth? Isn't that an issue?

Economic growth takes more than paying for thoughts and ideas that are not put into practice. And what it does take to maintain a growing economy places a strain on the natural world, the health of ecosystems, etc.

There are two main aspects of economic growth:

1. Aggregate demand (AD) (consumer spending, investment levels, government spending, exports-imports)
2. Aggregate supply (AS) (Productive capacity, the efficiency of economy, labour productivity)
3. To increase economic growth

We need to see a rise in demand and/or an increase in productive capacity:''

 

[bilby]

What about the ecological sustainability of perpetual economic growth? Isn't that an issue?

No, it's not. Because economic growth need not have any ecological effects whatsoever, and for the last century and more, has caused benefits to ecological systems as well as detriments.

Take Watt's steam engine. It caused significant increases in resource extraction, launched the industrial revolution, and generally seems like a perfect example of your claim.

But it started out by causing economic growth while lowering resource use.

It replaced the Newcomen steam engine, and in doing so allowed the more work to be done with less coal consumption.

A Newcomen Engine is less valuable than a Watt Engine; And a Watt engine uses fewer resources. Economic growth measures value. This is a clear example of economic growth with reductions in resource use and reductions in environmental impact.

We call increased value with lower resource use "efficiency", and its source is typically mere thinking - Watt thought about how a steam engine worked, and came up with an improvement.

Your claim, that economic growth always requires increased resource use and/or population growth, is synonymous with the claim that it is always impossible to improve efficiency in our economic activity. Watt proved you wrong in 1776. He wasn't the first; Efficiency gains have existed as long as humans have been doing work.

Value can be increased by thinking up efficiency gains. This requires zero additional resources, and often entails a reduction in resource use. Increasing value IS economic growth - they are the same thing.

Aggregate supply (AS) (Productive capacity, the efficiency of economy, labour productivity)

You are ignoring a crucial part of your own argument.

 

[DBT]

What about the ecological sustainability of perpetual economic growth? Isn't that an issue?

No, it's not. Because economic growth need not have any ecological effects whatsoever, and for the last century and more, has caused benefits to ecological systems as well as detriments.

Need not? Yet our economic does have ecological effects. That is how our society is structured. Nearly everything we do in order to live, earn a living, invest or buy comes from the natural world, growing food, materials for housing/steel. timber, cotton or plastics for clothes, computers, data storage centres built of steel, timber, plastics, etc, etc.

And to grow the economy requires increasing demand for goods and services, which in turn requires

Take Watt's steam engine. It caused significant increases in resource extraction, launched the industrial revolution, and generally seems like a perfect example of your claim. But it started out by causing economic growth while lowering resource use.
It replaced the Newcomen steam engine, and in doing so allowed the more work to be done with less coal consumption.

Yet it has done nothing to prevent us from getting ourselves into the situation we find ourselves, the state of the world as it now is, where some have estimated that we have already past the point of long term sustainability.

Pointing to any number of improvements in efficiency has done nothing to prevent us from getting to this point.

And even now our Government is calling for growth, increases in productivity and stimulating demand, high immigration, housing, spending, with no regard for what burden this is placing on the natural world.

''Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The date of Earth Overshoot Day is announced each year on June 5. The event is hosted and calculated by Global Footprint Network, an international research organization that provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.'' - Wiki.

 

[bilby]

What about the ecological sustainability of perpetual economic growth? Isn't that an issue?

No, it's not. Because economic growth need not have any ecological effects whatsoever, and for the last century and more, has caused benefits to ecological systems as well as detriments.

Need not? Yet our economic does have ecological effects. That is how our society is structured. Nearly everything we do in order to live, earn a living, invest or buy comes from the natural world, growing food, materials for housing/steel. timber, cotton or plastics for clothes, computers, data storage centres built of steel, timber, plastics, etc, etc.

And to grow the economy requires increasing demand for goods and services, which in turn requires

Take Watt's steam engine. It caused significant increases in resource extraction, launched the industrial revolution, and generally seems like a perfect example of your claim. But it started out by causing economic growth while lowering resource use.
It replaced the Newcomen steam engine, and in doing so allowed the more work to be done with less coal consumption.

Yet it has done nothing to prevent us from getting ourselves into the situation we find ourselves, the state of the world as it now is, where some have estimated that we have already past the point of long term sustainability.

Pointing to any number of improvements in efficiency has done nothing to prevent us from getting to this point.

And even now our Government is calling for growth, increases in productivity and stimulating demand, high immigration, housing, spending, with no regard for what burden this is placing on the natural world.

''Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The date of Earth Overshoot Day is announced each year on June 5. The event is hosted and calculated by Global Footprint Network, an international research organization that provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.'' - Wiki.

All of which is completely irrelevant to your claim that:

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

I have never been to Canada.

It does NOT follow that it would be impossible for me to visit Canada; Nor that I will never visit Canada.

 

[DBT]

What about the ecological sustainability of perpetual economic growth? Isn't that an issue?

No, it's not. Because economic growth need not have any ecological effects whatsoever, and for the last century and more, has caused benefits to ecological systems as well as detriments.

Need not? Yet our economic does have ecological effects. That is how our society is structured. Nearly everything we do in order to live, earn a living, invest or buy comes from the natural world, growing food, materials for housing/steel. timber, cotton or plastics for clothes, computers, data storage centres built of steel, timber, plastics, etc, etc.

And to grow the economy requires increasing demand for goods and services, which in turn requires

Take Watt's steam engine. It caused significant increases in resource extraction, launched the industrial revolution, and generally seems like a perfect example of your claim. But it started out by causing economic growth while lowering resource use.
It replaced the Newcomen steam engine, and in doing so allowed the more work to be done with less coal consumption.

Yet it has done nothing to prevent us from getting ourselves into the situation we find ourselves, the state of the world as it now is, where some have estimated that we have already past the point of long term sustainability.

Pointing to any number of improvements in efficiency has done nothing to prevent us from getting to this point.

And even now our Government is calling for growth, increases in productivity and stimulating demand, high immigration, housing, spending, with no regard for what burden this is placing on the natural world.

''Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of ecological resources and accumulating waste, primarily carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The date of Earth Overshoot Day is announced each year on June 5. The event is hosted and calculated by Global Footprint Network, an international research organization that provides decision-makers with a menu of tools to help the human economy operate within Earth’s ecological limits.'' - Wiki.

All of which is completely irrelevant to your claim that:

Perpetual economic growth is impossible, all else follows.

I have never been to Canada.

It does NOT follow that it would be impossible for me to visit Canada; Nor that I will never visit Canada.

Of course it's relevant. If our economic activity, the way we do business and conduct our lives, is not sustainable now, how is going to be in the long term if we keep growing the economy? Increasing demand won't help us to achieve long term sustainability, increasing supply certainly won't.

 

[Swammerdami]

Is this where we've moved the "Is human over-population sustainable?" debate?
A pessimistic piece popped onto newsfeeds recently.
Yes, I know the prefix "over-" may make a "No" answer tautological. A kid can have fun can't he?

Kabul, a city of over six million people, could become the first modern city to run out of water in the next five years, a new report has warned.

Groundwater levels in the Afghan capital have dropped drastically due to over-extraction and the effects of climate change, according to a report published by nonprofit Mercy Corps.

Kabul’s aquifer levels have plummeted 25-30 metres (82 – 98 feet) in the past decade, with extraction of water exceeding natural recharge by a staggering 44 million cubic metres (1,553cu feet) a year, the report, published in April this year, noted.

If the current trend continues, Kabul’s aquifers will become dry by 2030, posing an existential threat to the Afghan capital, according to the report. This could cause the displacement of some three million Afghan residents, it said.

The report said UNICEF projected that nearly half of Kabul’s underground bore wells, the primary source of drinking water for residents, are already dry.

It also highlights widespread water contamination: Up to 80 percent of groundwater is believed to be unsafe, with high levels of sewage, arsenic and salinity.

 

[bilby]

Of course it's relevant. If our economic activity, the way we do business and conduct our lives, is not sustainable now, how is going to be in the long term if we keep growing the economy?

By continuing to evolve away from resource use, and towards efficiency improvements.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that "We may well fuck this up" is indistingushable from "It is not possible for us not to fuck this up"; And that position is logically indefensible.

 

[bilby]

Is this where we've moved the "Is human over-population sustainable?" debate?

I sincerely hope not.

A pessimistic piece popped onto newsfeeds recently.

Looks to me like a "Didn't build infrastructure because we live in a warzone and have spent all our infrastructure money on weapons" problem, coupled with a "Climate change has reduced the rate at which our aquifer replenishes" problem, rather than an "overpopulation" problem.

Dubai has far less groundwater available than Kabul, and has a slightly larger population.

Yes, I know the prefix "over-" may make a "No" answer tautological. A kid can have fun can't he?

No law against it. But it's still a nonsensical thing to worry about.

 

[Elixir]

Looks to me like a "Didn't build infrastructure because we live in a warzone and have spent all our infrastructure money on weapons" problem, coupled with a "Climate change has reduced the rate at which our aquifer replenishes" problem, rather than an "overpopulation" problem.

“Overpopulation” is an opinion, and a subjective impression. It has no objective existence that can be blamed on this that or the other thing.
Certainly the widely held conviction that “there are too many people” is based on observations of real things. Dry wells are real things, traffic jams are real things, etc. but the notion that simply removing some fraction of all people will address any or all of those real things, is delusional and dangerous.

If and when overpopulation becomes its own free-standing problem, there won’t be any question about it because life expectancies will plummet, and so will population numbers. The inevitable result of a stand-alone overpopulation problem, will be “under-population”; that is what will define it in retrospect. We’re not there.

Meanwhile we do have the immediate challenges of trying to invest in lower impact infrastructure and environmental stability, rather than in armed conflicts and other wastes of natural resources.

 

[DBT]

Of course it's relevant. If our economic activity, the way we do business and conduct our lives, is not sustainable now, how is going to be in the long term if we keep growing the economy?

By continuing to evolve away from resource use, and towards efficiency improvements.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that "We may well fuck this up" is indistingushable from "It is not possible for us not to fuck this up"; And that position is logically indefensible.

Given a projected world population of 10 billion plus by mid century, reducing demand for goods and services to a sustainable level may be very difficult to do

 

[bilby]

Of course it's relevant. If our economic activity, the way we do business and conduct our lives, is not sustainable now, how is going to be in the long term if we keep growing the economy?

By continuing to evolve away from resource use, and towards efficiency improvements.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that "We may well fuck this up" is indistingushable from "It is not possible for us not to fuck this up"; And that position is logically indefensible.

Given a projected world population of 10 billion plus by mid century, reducing demand for goods and services to a sustainable level may be very difficult to do

That depends on how we go about meeting their demands.

With adequate supplies of inexpensive and non-polluting energy, it shouldn't be difficult at all.

Of course, the folks bleating the loudest about sustainability are also the biggest barrier to our having that, so you might be right - in a "self-fulfilling prophesy" kind of way.

 

[DBT]

Of course it's relevant. If our economic activity, the way we do business and conduct our lives, is not sustainable now, how is going to be in the long term if we keep growing the economy?

By continuing to evolve away from resource use, and towards efficiency improvements.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that "We may well fuck this up" is indistingushable from "It is not possible for us not to fuck this up"; And that position is logically indefensible.

Given a projected world population of 10 billion plus by mid century, reducing demand for goods and services to a sustainable level may be very difficult to do

That depends on how we go about meeting their demands.

With adequate supplies of inexpensive and non-polluting energy, it shouldn't be difficult at all.

Of course, the folks bleating the loudest about sustainability are also the biggest barrier to our having that, so you might be right - in a "self-fulfilling prophesy" kind of way.

We are not living sustainably now. Nor have we for some time. The problem doesn't seem to be those who point to the problem, but those that want business as usual, resisting change that would probably help to achieve it..

 

[bilby]

We are not living sustainably now. Nor have we for some time.

But we could be. We easily have the means; We just choose not to employ them.

The problem isn't population, nor even sustainability; It's accountability. A small number of wealthy and powerful actors have a strong profit motive to continue to externalise the costs of cleaning up their mess, and while they are permitted to do that, we will continue to burn fossil fuels, because doing so is cheap.

If we paid the full cost of all fuels - including the cost of completely managing their wastes, and of repairing any damage they do (including but not limited to the decommissioning costs to return sites to their original condition), our entire footprint on the planet would look radically different.

We currently only do this for nuclear fission (and even with that massive financial handicap, it's still competitive in the energy market).

We don't need to reduce our population, if we massively reduce coal, oil, and gas consumption. But lower fossil fuel consumption would make despots and energy corporations sad; And having fewer people (whether because they die or are never born) doesn't make despots or corporations sad.

Having fewer people makes a lot of poor people (particularly those whose families or friends were culled) very sad indeed; But powerful and wealthy people don't care about that, so they have spent the last century or so persuading everyone that the real problems are "sustainability" and "population". But it's not so. The real problem is unaccountable power brokers being permitted to exploit resources without paying for them.

 

[Toni]

We are not living sustainably now. Nor have we for some time.

But we could be. We easily have the means; We just choose not to employ them.

The problem isn't population, nor even sustainability; It's accountability. A small number of wealthy and powerful actors have a strong profit motive to continue to externalise the costs of cleaning up their mess, and while they are permitted to do that, we will continue to burn fossil fuels, because doing so is cheap.

If we paid the full cost of all fuels - including the cost of completely managing their wastes, and of repairing any damage they do (including but not limited to the decommissioning costs to return sites to their original condition), our entire footprint on the planet would look radically different.

We currently only do this for nuclear fission (and even with that massive financial handicap, it's still competitive in the energy market).

We don't need to reduce our population, if we massively reduce coal, oil, and gas consumption. But lower fossil fuel consumption would make despots and energy corporations sad; And having fewer people (whether because they die or are never born) doesn't make despots or corporations sad.

Having fewer people makes a lot of poor people (particularly those whose families or friends were culled) very sad indeed; But powerful and wealthy people don't care about that, so they have spent the last century or so persuading everyone that the real problems are "sustainability" and "population". But it's not so. The real problem is unaccountable power brokers being permitted to exploit resources without paying for them.

I think you are discounting the choices individuals can and do make: in the US, over consumption of ( fill in the blanks) of most goods is a huge problem ( I write as trying to decide which dress I should get for an upcoming party, which btw I already have a stuffed closet). Yes yes yes: we are well programmed to believe we need a never ending supply of…stuff. Stuff to eat or wear or play, and especially disposable stuff, likely made by someone working in a third world country for little pay in deplorable conditions, which will then have to be shipped to the US and to our stores or our houses using how much fossil fuels? Lots. After which it will go into landfills and poison our soil and water, unless it is burned in which case, it also poisons our air. Consumerism has been a growing problem since the 1980’s, encouraged by Ronald Reagan and eagerly embraced by all of us boomers who were getting the better life that our depression era parents did not have and worked hard to give us. Which is evidenced by our burgeoning closets and pantries —and landfills.

Poor people struggle very much with having enough ( fill in all the blanks) and a the same time, also long for consumer goods and must settle for cheapest and worst quality of everything. Except, kids. Kids are great but they fuel the longing for more stuff because parents hate to see their kids do without the stuff other kids have.

Stuff is fueling the consumption of fuel—fossil and otherwise

 

[DBT]

We are not living sustainably now. Nor have we for some time.

But we could be. We easily have the means; We just choose not to employ them.

The problem isn't population, nor even sustainability; It's accountability. A small number of wealthy and powerful actors have a strong profit motive to continue to externalise the costs of cleaning up their mess, and while they are permitted to do that, we will continue to burn fossil fuels, because doing so is cheap.

If we paid the full cost of all fuels - including the cost of completely managing their wastes, and of repairing any damage they do (including but not limited to the decommissioning costs to return sites to their original condition), our entire footprint on the planet would look radically different.

We currently only do this for nuclear fission (and even with that massive financial handicap, it's still competitive in the energy market).

We don't need to reduce our population, if we massively reduce coal, oil, and gas consumption. But lower fossil fuel consumption would make despots and energy corporations sad; And having fewer people (whether because they die or are never born) doesn't make despots or corporations sad.

Having fewer people makes a lot of poor people (particularly those whose families or friends were culled) very sad indeed; But powerful and wealthy people don't care about that, so they have spent the last century or so persuading everyone that the real problems are "sustainability" and "population". But it's not so. The real problem is unaccountable power brokers being permitted to exploit resources without paying for them.

We could be, but without a radical change in attitude, overcoming the business as usual mentality, how likely is that we achieve long term sustainability?

Pus numbers do count. Given similar ratios of wealth, lifestyle, etc, a world population of two billion is not going to place the same demand on environment and resources as a population of ten billion or more.

 

[bilby]

We could be, but without a radical change in attitude, overcoming the business as usual mentality, how likely is that we achieve long term sustainability?

More likely than a radical change in attitude that causes population to fall significantly and rapidly.

Which wouldn't achieve long term sustainability anyway, ceteris paribus, unless most of the population we removed were drawn from the wealthiest cohort.

Most pollution is attributable to a fairly small number of people. African and Asian subsistence farmers are not generating it; Rich westerners are.

We could choose to not only stop having stuff we want, but also stop those in the developing world from ever having that stuff, no matter how much they want it and how hard they work; Or we could switch to non-polluting energy sources and effective recycling systems, and have as much stuff as we like for whoever wants it.

 

[bilby]

Given similar ratios of wealth, lifestyle, etc, a world population of two billion is not going to place the same demand on environment and resources as a population of ten billion or more.

Why would we assume similar ratios of wealth? We could have two billion people with similar wealth to the wealthiest quarter of our current population. After all, they have access to all the resources that quarter used to get wealthy, and then some.

How do you propose to stop people from wanting nice things, and why do you think that would be worth doing, even if we could?