The end of economic growth.

[DBT]

Economic growth, both in the form of ever increasing demand within a stable population, and in a World of increasing population numbers is dangerous idea.

Dangerous because perpetual growth eventually hits the wall of finite space and resources, the neoclassical economist idea of economic growth in a full world appears to me to be a pipe dream, a fantasy that puts future generations at risk of economic collapse.

As Brian Czech says in his book Shock:
''A core tenet of Supply Shock is that there are serious problems with our current favored indicators of economic well-being, consumption and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. These metrics totally ignore biophysical and ecological realities, implying that growth can continue forever, that it's the solution to all our problems and that its damaging by-products can be shrugged off as “externalities.”

''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

''The idea of a steady state economy is directly rooted in the law of entropy. Indeed, Herman Daly, the father of steady state economics, used entropy as his conceptual framework.''

All in agreement?

 

[Jayjay]

I don't think we are anywhere near the limit where entropy becomes an issue. Right no we are using maybe one hundreth of one percent of energy that hits the Earth coming from the sun. Even with steady exponential growth rate of about 5% per year, we won't hti that limit until ~180 years from now. By then we might have expanded to space also, and it is more likely that the growth rate will just slow down rather than hit a wall.

Second, even if we were to hit a wall, the per capita GDP can still grow by way of population reduction. Unlikely to happen entirely voluntarily but when push comes to shove it will happen.

 

[barbos]

''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

Well, it's true that Sun's energy will dissipate eventually (6bil years)
So I think we still have a little bit of time.

 

[dystopian]

I don't think we are anywhere near the limit where entropy becomes an issue. Right no we are using maybe one hundreth of one percent of energy that hits the Earth coming from the sun. Even with steady exponential growth rate of about 5% per year, we won't hti that limit until ~180 years from now. By then we might have expanded to space also, and it is more likely that the growth rate will just slow down rather than hit a wall.

While it's true we're not anywhere near the limit where entropy becomes an issue, I wouldn't qualify that as an argument in favor of unrestricted economic growth. Of course, conversely, I also wouldn't use entropy; short term or ridiculously long term; as an argument against it, as there's much better and more valid reasons to want changes to the system.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Economic growth, both in the form of ever increasing demand within a stable population, and in a World of increasing population numbers is dangerous idea.

Dangerous because perpetual growth eventually hits the wall of finite space and resources, the neoclassical economist idea of economic growth in a full world appears to me to be a pipe dream, a fantasy that puts future generations at risk of economic collapse.

As Brian Czech says in his book Shock:
''A core tenet of Supply Shock is that there are serious problems with our current favored indicators of economic well-being, consumption and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. These metrics totally ignore biophysical and ecological realities, implying that growth can continue forever, that it's the solution to all our problems and that its damaging by-products can be shrugged off as “externalities.”

''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

''The idea of a steady state economy is directly rooted in the law of entropy. Indeed, Herman Daly, the father of steady state economics, used entropy as his conceptual framework.''

All in agreement?

Not really, as we always want shiny things that are new.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Economic growth is not about resources but rather available resources. Talking about solar output is just talk until that becomes a reality. There are plenty of examples of social and environmental collapse when civilizations outstripped their available resources. We're like beaver. We can build and expand. But when the resources are gone we have to move on if there's a place to move to. Humans are notoriously shitty at living within their means and controlling their populations and very good at degrading their environments to the point where they no longer provide adequate support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think we are anywhere near the limit where entropy becomes an issue. Right no we are using maybe one hundreth of one percent of energy that hits the Earth coming from the sun. Even with steady exponential growth rate of about 5% per year, we won't hti that limit until ~180 years from now. By then we might have expanded to space also, and it is more likely that the growth rate will just slow down rather than hit a wall.

Second, even if we were to hit a wall, the per capita GDP can still grow by way of population reduction. Unlikely to happen entirely voluntarily but when push comes to shove it will happen.

And we are increasingly moving into a realm where increased value doesn't require increased energy anyway. In most cases our things aren't getting bigger, they're getting more brains.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And we are increasingly moving into a realm where increased value doesn't require increased energy anyway. In most cases our things aren't getting bigger, they're getting more brains.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Loren.

 

[NobleSavage]

And we are increasingly moving into a realm where increased value doesn't require increased energy anyway. In most cases our things aren't getting bigger, they're getting more brains.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Loren.

Yeah, we have a long way to go before increasing GDP requires less energy. If you look at a chart of global energy use it's growth is exponential. Will it stop in time to keep us from cooking ourselves? I don't know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And we are increasingly moving into a realm where increased value doesn't require increased energy anyway. In most cases our things aren't getting bigger, they're getting more brains.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Loren.

That's water, not energy. The water allocations are based on too high a baseline, of course we have trouble.

 

[skepticalbip]

And we are increasingly moving into a realm where increased value doesn't require increased energy anyway. In most cases our things aren't getting bigger, they're getting more brains.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Loren.

That doesn't really say anything about humanity outstripping resources. It is about a lot of people moving into an area that has no water and having to import that resource then the problem when there is a temporary disruption of that diversion.

 

[NobleSavage]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Loren.

That doesn't really say anything about humanity outstripping resources. It is about a lot of people moving into an area that has no water and having to import that resource then the problem when there is a temporary disruption of that diversion.

We can desalinate sea water. That's just an energy/money problem. What other resources you got in mind?

 

[Bomb#20]

As Brian Czech says in his book Shock:
...
''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

''The idea of a steady state economy is directly rooted in the law of entropy. Indeed, Herman Daly, the father of steady state economics, used entropy as his conceptual framework.''

All in agreement?

You know, when somebody is looking through his smidgen of familiarity with physics in hope of finding something to back up his conviction that the experts are all wrong because they've all stupidly missed something that's painfully obvious to a non-expert like himself, and he settles on the exact same hard law of physics that is used for the exact same purpose by creationists, he'd be wise to take that as a red flag that he just might be a crackpot.

 

[skepticalbip]

That doesn't really say anything about humanity outstripping resources. It is about a lot of people moving into an area that has no water and having to import that resource then the problem when there is a temporary disruption of that diversion.

We can desalinate sea water. That's just an energy/money problem. What other resources you got in mind?

That was sorta my point.

The fear of running out of resources is pretty much a baseless fear. We only need energy and there is plenty of that although we occasionally change where we get that energy. Once it was from burning wood, then coal, then oil, now we are adding nuclear, solar, tidal, etc.

 

[DBT]

''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

Well, it's true that Sun's energy will dissipate eventually (6bil years)
So I think we still have a little bit of time.

Entropy is the principle, that we are using up non renewable resources at an unsustainable rate is the fact.

You immediately focus on one, the principle (entropy), but ignore our unsustainable economy, loss of habitat, urbanization of prime farmland, shortage of potable water, mountains of waste, whole floating islands of plastic waste, etc, etc, which is driven by the myth of perpetual growth.

 

[barbos]

Well, it's true that Sun's energy will dissipate eventually (6bil years)
So I think we still have a little bit of time.

Entropy is the principle, that we are using up non renewable resources at an unsustainable rate is the fact.

You immediately focus on one, the principle (entropy), but ignore our unsustainable economy, loss of habitat, urbanization of prime farmland, shortage of potable water, mountains of waste, whole floating islands of plastic waste, etc, etc, which is driven by the myth of perpetual growth.

I don't disagree with the thesis generally. I just have problem with misuse of physics.
I have always been against notion that economic growth is the most important metric.

 

[DBT]

As Brian Czech says in his book Shock:
...
''In focusing on the economy’s size rather than its true health, GDP disregards the hard laws of physics that ultimately constrain economic activity. Chief among these is the second law of thermodynamics, also referred to by the term “entropy.” Entropy explains why so many visions of a sustainable society are simply elaborate spins on the old perpetual motion machine. Czech sums it up nicely: "[E]nergy inevitably, invariably dissipates. ''

''The idea of a steady state economy is directly rooted in the law of entropy. Indeed, Herman Daly, the father of steady state economics, used entropy as his conceptual framework.''

All in agreement?

You know, when somebody is looking through his smidgen of familiarity with physics in hope of finding something to back up his conviction that the experts are all wrong because they've all stupidly missed something that's painfully obvious to a non-expert like himself, and he settles on the exact same hard law of physics that is used for the exact same purpose by creationists, he'd be wise to take that as a red flag that he just might be a crackpot.

You haven't read the book? It appears that you have latched onto a paragraph and based your assumptions on an interpretation that suits your own position. Read it first, then offer a reasonable critique.

 

[DBT]

Entropy is the principle, that we are using up non renewable resources at an unsustainable rate is the fact.

You immediately focus on one, the principle (entropy), but ignore our unsustainable economy, loss of habitat, urbanization of prime farmland, shortage of potable water, mountains of waste, whole floating islands of plastic waste, etc, etc, which is driven by the myth of perpetual growth.

I don't disagree with the thesis generally. I just have problem with misuse of physics.
I have always been against notion that economic growth is the most important metric.

How is it a misuse of physics? Our economic activity cannot be separated from the fundamental principles of physics. Systems run down. 100% efficiency is impossible. We are burning fossil fuels (cheap fossil-fuel energy), rather than using renewables, the latter being insufficient to meet our power needs, and in an ever growing economy demand and consumption can only increase however efficient our use.

And given the simple fact that we have finite resources, finite fossil fuels, finite arable land, finite supply of potable water, at some point we are going to hit the wall of supply shock if the perpetual growth myth is not scrapped.

Just subtract the single element of cheap fossil fuels and the life we know it will be altered drastically.

 

[barbos]

I don't disagree with the thesis generally. I just have problem with misuse of physics.
I have always been against notion that economic growth is the most important metric.

How is it a misuse of physics? Our economic activity cannot be separated from the fundamental principles of physics. Systems run down. 100% efficiency is impossible. We are burning fossil fuels (cheap fossil-fuel energy), rather than using renewables, the latter being insufficient to meet our power needs, and in an ever growing economy demand and consumption can only increase however efficient our use.

Well, fossil fuels are being burnt according to physics laws, that's for sure.

And given the simple fact that we have finite resources, finite fossil fuels, finite arable land, finite supply of potable water, at some point we are going to hit the wall of supply shock if the perpetual growth myth is not scrapped.

Just subtract the single element of cheap fossil fuels and the life we know it will be altered drastically.

Well, actually, according to physics, purpose of life is to increase entropy at maximum possible rate.
So in a way, all that crap is happening according to laws of nature

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree with the thesis generally. I just have problem with misuse of physics.
I have always been against notion that economic growth is the most important metric.

How is it a misuse of physics? Our economic activity cannot be separated from the fundamental principles of physics. Systems run down. 100% efficiency is impossible. We are burning fossil fuels (cheap fossil-fuel energy), rather than using renewables, the latter being insufficient to meet our power needs, and in an ever growing economy demand and consumption can only increase however efficient our use.

Well, fossil fuels are being burnt according to physics laws, that's for sure.

And given the simple fact that we have finite resources, finite fossil fuels, finite arable land, finite supply of potable water, at some point we are going to hit the wall of supply shock if the perpetual growth myth is not scrapped.

Just subtract the single element of cheap fossil fuels and the life we know it will be altered drastically.

Well, actually, according to physics, purpose of life is to increase entropy at maximum possible rate.
So in a way, all that crap is happening according to laws of nature

 

[DBT]

Well, actually, according to physics, purpose of life is to increase entropy at maximum possible rate.
So in a way, all that crap is happening according to laws of nature

Which avoids the point that perpetual growth as the basic economic principle of human society is unsustainable within a world of finite space, arable land, and natural resources (basic physics). At some point perpetual growth is going to hit the wall of supply shock, so it's only a question of when.