Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem with this is that it's mostly disinformation. People didn't vote for The Felon over real issues, but over what they had been led to believe.

 

[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?

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.)

How is it a matter of economic growth? Do consumers keep paying higher and higher prices for new products regardless of the state of the overall economy, which is no longer growing?

 

[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.

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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

Speaking of economics at its most blatantly trivial, have YOU even Googled the definition of Money yet?

That only happens in situations where either it's unique (the artwork you mention),

It was bilby who mentioned that example in #228 ("For example, the value of Van Gogh's famous painting 'Sunflowers'"). It's not my fault if HE introduced an example that argued directly AGAINST whatever point he was trying to make.

 

[Swammerdami]

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 ...

Wrong again. While Googling "Money" you might want to learn about Scarcity. Potash is SCARCE; easily recovered gold is SCARCE. In fact "economics" has been called "the science of scarcity."

 

[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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

 

[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.

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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

 

[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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

Sure. But they don't demand the same amount, or even similar amounts, of those things.

If you reduced human population by a quarter, the effect on demand would depend entirely on which quarter - get rid of the richest quarter and demand would plummet. Get rid of the poorest quarter and it would barely change.

 

[unapologetic]

.... 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.)

How is it a matter of economic growth? Do consumers keep paying higher and higher prices for new products regardless of the state of the overall economy, which is no longer growing?

Yes. It's called inflation.
Tho worthless now. The 'mb' card cost just as much when new (adjusted for inflation) as the 'gb' card does now.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

"goods and services" covers a lot of ground, and highly manipulated. So not a 'sole source'.
I need TV, and toys for my cat (who gets bored quickly).

 

[DBT]

.... 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.)

How is it a matter of economic growth? Do consumers keep paying higher and higher prices for new products regardless of the state of the overall economy, which is no longer growing?

Yes. It's called inflation.
Tho worthless now. The 'mb' card cost just as much when new (adjusted for inflation) as the 'gb' card does now.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

"goods and services" covers a lot of ground, and highly manipulated. So not a 'sole source'.
I need TV, and toys for my cat (who gets bored quickly).

I said that people are the sole source of demand for goods and services, which obviously means the full range, food, clothing, transport, housing, medical, entertainment, books, magazines, videos. vacations, etcetera.

 

[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.

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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

Sure. But they don't demand the same amount, or even similar amounts, of those things.

If you reduced human population by a quarter, the effect on demand would depend entirely on which quarter - get rid of the richest quarter and demand would plummet. Get rid of the poorest quarter and it would barely change.

Sure, but a constant number of consumers can't generate an ever increasing demand for goods and services before the market is saturated and profit margins hit their peak.

 

[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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

Sure. But they don't demand the same amount, or even similar amounts, of those things.

If you reduced human population by a quarter, the effect on demand would depend entirely on which quarter - get rid of the richest quarter and demand would plummet. Get rid of the poorest quarter and it would barely change.

Sure, but a constant number of consumers can't generate an ever increasing demand for goods and services before the market is saturated and profit margins hit their peak.

Yeah, they can. I have yet to see a clear limit to the demand of billionaires for more wealth to support more consumption.

 

[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.

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.

I said it because population growth is related to economic growth. Without more consumers entering the marketplace, the demand for goods and services flattens out, consequently, a stable population cannot sustain an increasing demand for goods and services, or perpetual growth.

That would only be true if each person were a constant and equal unit of consumption.

But they are not.

You don't need more Americans in order to increase demand for automobiles, when you could instead increase demand by making existing Asians or Africans wealthy enough to demand automobiles.

More consumers doesn't imply more people being born, just more people who can afford whatever it is you want them to consume.

Economic growth in a steady state population can easily occur, as long as those people are getting better off over time.

People need food and shelter, goods and services, and that is the sole source of demand and supply.

Sure. But they don't demand the same amount, or even similar amounts, of those things.

If you reduced human population by a quarter, the effect on demand would depend entirely on which quarter - get rid of the richest quarter and demand would plummet. Get rid of the poorest quarter and it would barely change.

Sure, but a constant number of consumers can't generate an ever increasing demand for goods and services before the market is saturated and profit margins hit their peak.

Yeah, they can. I have yet to see a clear limit to the demand of billionaires for more wealth to support more consumption.

We currently support and promote economic growth, ever increasing revenue that tends to accumulate in the pockets of the super rich. Trickle down economics.

How long this can continue is the question.

 

[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.

The problem with this is that it's mostly disinformation. People didn't vote for The Felon over real issues, but over what they had been led to believe.

As much as I dislike Trump, he got elected for two main reasons. Chaos at the border, and the economy. Biden was tone deaf to both issues and kept repeating the tired old progressive democratic cliches.

They did vote for real issues, and that is the conclusion of the political pundits supported by interviews with people. His approval rating right now is over 50%.

Voting in the election shows a small but clear shift to the right even in blue states.

Eben in highly progressive Seattle and Washington approval of illegal immigrant has dropped. People are tired o having to deal with it and pay for it.

It has long been known globally where populations can not be supported if you get across the southern border you are home free. Overpopulation elsewhere is fueling our border problem.

Greece has a long runng isuue with mignats.

 

[unapologetic]

I said that people are the sole source of demand for goods and services, which obviously means...

Sorry. It was not obvious that your emphasis was on 'people'. It read like your emphasis was on the stuff.

 

[DBT]

I said that people are the sole source of demand for goods and services, which obviously means...

Sorry. It was not obvious that your emphasis was on 'people'. It read like your emphasis was on the stuff.

I probably should have been clearer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem with this is that it's mostly disinformation. People didn't vote for The Felon over real issues, but over what they had been led to believe.

As much as I dislike Trump, he got elected for two main reasons. Chaos at the border, and the economy. Biden was tone deaf to both issues and kept repeating the tired old progressive democratic cliches.

How many times do we have to point out that the border issue was caused by the Republicans? They would not agree to anything in order to use it as an election issue.

And the economy is far more disinformation than reality.

 

[Swammerdami]

I continue to be baffled at the claim that high human populations do not impact the ecosphere or the quality of human life.

Google News summary just pointed me to an article with this title:

Microplastics in placentas linked to premature births, study suggests​

Tiny plastic pollution more than 50% higher in placentas from preterm births than in those from full-term births

Plastic pollution tends to be proportional to population density, right? Actually I doubt it. High densities introduce problems which require MORE intensive technology, e.g. more use per capita of pollutants.
Microplastics in placentas are likely to be proportional to the magnitude of plastic pollution, right?
That microplastics in placentas are bad seems to follow from just the article's title, right?

I'm sorry if I've not connected the dots thoroughly on this one of so many MANY examples. I continue to be baffled that I should need to.

The usual rebuttal from the pro-overpopulation crowd is that PEOPLE are not the problem; the problem is BILLIONAIRES. But does a billion-aire really use one million times as much plastic as a thousand-aire? Seems unlikely.

 

[Elixir]

But does a billion-aire really use one million times as much plastic as a thousand-aire? Seems unlikely.

It’s not their personal use that focuses such blame on billionaires. It’s the plastic produced and discarded in the process of making them billionaires, which is hard to quantify but it’s a lot.

 

[bigfield]

I continue to be baffled at the claim that high human populations do not impact the ecosphere or the quality of human life.

Google News summary just pointed me to an article with this title:

Microplastics in placentas linked to premature births, study suggests​

Tiny plastic pollution more than 50% higher in placentas from preterm births than in those from full-term births

Plastic pollution tends to be proportional to population density, right? Actually I doubt it. High densities introduce problems which require MORE intensive technology, e.g. more use per capita of pollutants.
Microplastics in placentas are likely to be proportional to the magnitude of plastic pollution, right?
That microplastics in placentas are bad seems to follow from just the article's title, right?

I'm sorry if I've not connected the dots thoroughly on this one of so many MANY examples. I continue to be baffled that I should need to.

The usual rebuttal from the pro-overpopulation crowd is that PEOPLE are not the problem; the problem is BILLIONAIRES. But does a billion-aire really use one million times as much plastic as a thousand-aire? Seems unlikely.

Plastic pollution damages the ecosphere and human health regardless of the size of human population. There's no healthy level of gut microplastics.

So the problem seems to be that we don't manage plastic waste because manufacturers are allowed to externalise the environmental cost of their products.