The end of economic growth.

[barbos]

Yes, exactly.

Sorry to say, but it's wrong. Physics being completely and utterly inseparable from technology and environment. Sometimes it seems like some folks believe that there is only a loose link between the two. It's quite odd.

Yeah and according to physics, planet Earth can support 20 trillions people.

 

[DBT]

Sorry to say, but it's wrong. Physics being completely and utterly inseparable from technology and environment. Sometimes it seems like some folks believe that there is only a loose link between the two. It's quite odd.

Yeah and according to physics, planet Earth can support 20 trillions people.

By what criteria? Is it taking the carrying capacity of the Planet's diverse range of environments and ecosystems into account? All of which are subject to the laws of physics.....

 

[arkirk]

Sorry to say, but it's wrong. Physics being completely and utterly inseparable from technology and environment. Sometimes it seems like some folks believe that there is only a loose link between the two. It's quite odd.

Yeah and according to physics, planet Earth can support 20 trillions people.

Just which physics are you referring to? The things you take to make you shit? It is the chemistry and metabolism of seven billion human beings that is the problem. Natural processed cannot at this time supply the nutrition for these seven billion people without new technologies to support it. What is commonly construed as physics is actually mass action chemistry and that yields very different results. I have heard figures of about half a billion people using sustainable means long term. One very serious problem is that the population of our planet has been grossly expanded with the advent of petrochemical fertilizers made of nitrogen fixed methane. As the vast majority of fertilizers used to feed us all is made of this stuff, the petrochemical industry has built for itself humanity's dependence on it for food.

 

[barbos]

Yeah and according to physics, planet Earth can support 20 trillions people.

Just which physics are you referring to? The things you take to make you shit? It is the chemistry and metabolism of seven billion human beings that is the problem. Natural processed cannot at this time supply the nutrition for these seven billion people without new technologies to support it. What is commonly construed as physics is actually mass action chemistry and that yields very different results. I have heard figures of about half a billion people using sustainable means long term. One very serious problem is that the population of our planet has been grossly expanded with the advent of petrochemical fertilizers made of nitrogen fixed methane. As the vast majority of fertilizers used to feed us all is made of this stuff, the petrochemical industry has built for itself humanity's dependence on it for food.

I already answered this question.

 

[DBT]

In the ABC studio with Brian Czech on the subject of steady state economics.

''Treasurer Joe Hockey has called for G20 nations to push for a 2% increase in growth over current forecasts. But there are those who believe fervently that perpetual economic growth is neither possible, nor desirable. And that most economists are barking right up the wrong tree.''

 

[Bomb#20]

I.e., reasons other than 2LoT.

Nope.

2LoT is interwoven into the fabric of an ecosystem. Woven into the very fabric of matter/energy for that matter. Can't be separated.

I.e., you're giving yourself permission to use 2LoT as a label you slap onto all of science, thereby making your contention unfalsifiable. That's no better than using it as a metaphor.

Huh? They want to stimulate growth per capita. A bigger economy spread among proportionately more people doesn't make anybody better off, so what's the point in that? The idea is to make people richer and happier, not just pack them together tighter. More and more people always staying just as poor as we are now is stagnation.

There is a limit to how rich and happy people can become. If everyone owns a hundred houses, most houses remain empty and unused, you can't drive a thousand cars...

Indeed so. Quote a neoclassical economist saying otherwise. This notion of perpetual growth you're defining your own position by your opposition to is a figment of your imagination; it's not anything standard economic theory is based on. The reason neoclassical economists are pro-growth and their theories treat growth as a good thing is that we currently appear to be nowhere near the point where growth stops making people happier. Once again, I have to ask you to tell us when you figure physical limits will make further growth impracticable. Until you answer that, you're just blowing smoke.

But ruling out perpetual growth isn't what we're arguing about. The distinction is entirely relevant to the issue of why Czech comes off as an idiot.

If you aren't ruling out the pipe dream of perpetual growth, you are missing the point altogether.

Who says I'm not ruling it out? I already pointed out that if we grew energy use enough we'd fry the earth. The circumstance that you refuse to distinguish between ruling it out on 2LoT grounds and ruling it out on other grounds doesn't entitle you to lay your own mental block on that point at my door, and claim I believe in perpetual growth.

The point of Czech's book is to show why perpetual economic growth is the a pipe dream of neoclassical economists <snip>

So why won't you quote his evidence that neoclassical economists are pipe dreaming any such thing? Dreaming of growth for another hundred years or even another ten thousand years does not qualify as dreaming of perpetual growth.

A world where people can have only what someone decides they need, and have no hope for luxuries and no hope for progress, would be a dreary world.

You see, it statements just like this that tell me that you don't understand the issue of unsustainable growth. Nobody is arguing that an economy should not grow and evolve, least of all Czech. He thoroughly explains the benefits of growth. And of course it's pitfalls and limitations. You are making assumptions based on what you believe is being said, and not on what is actually being said.

Excuse me? Yes, somebody bloody well is arguing that an economy should not grow, and the somebody is you. You're the one who wrote:

"Just as it's a good thing that our economy grows to an optimum level, a level that provides for the needs of all its members, then stops expanding, ever larger and larger."
​

Yes, that is what is actually being said. No, it is not a good thing for an economy to stop growing when all the needs of its members are met. That is too soon to stop growing. It should keep growing beyond that point, until further growth stops making people happier.

 

[arkirk]

Nope.

2LoT is interwoven into the fabric of an ecosystem. Woven into the very fabric of matter/energy for that matter. Can't be separated.

I.e., you're giving yourself permission to use 2LoT as a label you slap onto all of science, thereby making your contention unfalsifiable. That's no better than using it as a metaphor.

Huh? They want to stimulate growth per capita. A bigger economy spread among proportionately more people doesn't make anybody better off, so what's the point in that? The idea is to make people richer and happier, not just pack them together tighter. More and more people always staying just as poor as we are now is stagnation.

There is a limit to how rich and happy people can become. If everyone owns a hundred houses, most houses remain empty and unused, you can't drive a thousand cars...

Indeed so. Quote a neoclassical economist saying otherwise. This notion of perpetual growth you're defining your own position by your opposition to is a figment of your imagination; it's not anything standard economic theory is based on. The reason neoclassical economists are pro-growth and their theories treat growth as a good thing is that we currently appear to be nowhere near the point where growth stops making people happier. Once again, I have to ask you to tell us when you figure physical limits will make further growth impracticable. Until you answer that, you're just blowing smoke.

But ruling out perpetual growth isn't what we're arguing about. The distinction is entirely relevant to the issue of why Czech comes off as an idiot.

If you aren't ruling out the pipe dream of perpetual growth, you are missing the point altogether.

Who says I'm not ruling it out? I already pointed out that if we grew energy use enough we'd fry the earth. The circumstance that you refuse to distinguish between ruling it out on 2LoT grounds and ruling it out on other grounds doesn't entitle you to lay your own mental block on that point at my door, and claim I believe in perpetual growth.

The point of Czech's book is to show why perpetual economic growth is the a pipe dream of neoclassical economists <snip>

So why won't you quote his evidence that neoclassical economists are pipe dreaming any such thing? Dreaming of growth for another hundred years or even another ten thousand years does not qualify as dreaming of perpetual growth.

A world where people can have only what someone decides they need, and have no hope for luxuries and no hope for progress, would be a dreary world.

You see, it statements just like this that tell me that you don't understand the issue of unsustainable growth. Nobody is arguing that an economy should not grow and evolve, least of all Czech. He thoroughly explains the benefits of growth. And of course it's pitfalls and limitations. You are making assumptions based on what you believe is being said, and not on what is actually being said.

Excuse me? Yes, somebody bloody well is arguing that an economy should not grow, and the somebody is you. You're the one who wrote:

"Just as it's a good thing that our economy grows to an optimum level, a level that provides for the needs of all its members, then stops expanding, ever larger and larger."
​

Yes, that is what is actually being said. No, it is not a good thing for an economy to stop growing when all the needs of its members are met. That is too soon to stop growing. It should keep growing beyond that point, until further growth stops making people happier.

You can print money and "grow" the economy by it having more money in it circulation and also being chased by those who want it all and to keep it and still not be in too much trouble. I believe the economy DBT is talking about is the physical economy which is not currently well understood by most classic economists. Let us for a moment assume we are as bacteria on a petri dish. We have a metabolism that consumes the material in the dish and lives and grows. Ecological services (the actions of systems that are not human but instead produce the feed we need to live) each have their own metabolisms. That is the difference between our world and a petri dish.

Unlike bacteria, our "growth" is not just the numerical growth of our bodies. It is the growth of all the demands and waste inputs we contribute to our environment. So one person with a car, a home with central air conditioning and a 74th floor office or perhaps a machine shop is equal in ecological terms to far more than his simple metabolic demand. We simply are outstripping the ecological services this earth can deliver to us for our use NOW. To date, our cleverness as a species has been confined mainly to increasing our demand on the ecology of our medium. For every living essential (food, potable water, air, etc.) there is a point where our consumption of our medium exceeds the ecological services' abilities to reconstitute the condition necessary to our continued existence. It is NOT just a matter of our number, but also a matter of the consumption per capita of our resources.

Because we exist today, it is obvious that the existing ecological services have continued to supply us as a race, with sufficient natural resources to stay alive...but physics and chemistry are giving us warnings that we are grossly altering the environment in such a way that we can neither increase too much more in our number and also have to decrease the amount of demand we are placing on our environment. Now this can be taken as a challenge and we can seek out and adopt different paradigms for our economy that are inclusive of far more parameters than we currently use. I do not know just what social institutions will survive or should survive. What I do know is that if we continue to insult the ecological services we rely on for living, we won't be surviving. "Growth" as we know it MUST STOP. That does not preclude we become a lot more savvy about our policies. In the end, population must stop growing and the totality of our consumption must decrease. This is completely regardless of what we feel we must have in order to make us happy. The notion that we must have a world that serves us is simply magical thinking and headed for profound disillusionment.

 

[DBT]

Well put, arkirk. Neoclassical economic ideology misses the point entirely: that Planet Earth is a finite habitat with finite natural resources and a finite ability to regenerate ecosystems. The mantra of economic growth, barring the mere lip service of 'sustainable growth,' seriously needs to be questioned.

 

[DBT]

I.e., you're giving yourself permission to use 2LoT as a label you slap onto all of science, thereby making your contention unfalsifiable. That's no better than using it as a metaphor.

Not at all, The second law of thermodynamics applies to matter/energy, as does the first and third. That is the fact of it. This applies to Plant and animal life. It applies to ecosystems. It applies to Human activity. It applies to Human economics - human economics being founded upon the natural World and its ecosystems....milk, bread, meat, eggs, potatoes, etc, etc...not being manufactured in a supermarket.

Indeed so. Quote a neoclassical economist saying otherwise. This notion of perpetual growth you're defining your own position by your opposition to is a figment of your imagination; it's not anything standard economic theory is based on. The reason neoclassical economists are pro-growth and their theories treat growth as a good thing is that we currently appear to be nowhere near the point where growth stops making people happier. Once again, I have to ask you to tell us when you figure physical limits will make further growth impracticable. Until you answer that, you're just blowing smoke.

Where do you see neoclassical economists calling for an end to growth? I don't. That is why economists like Herman Daly, Brian Czech (both ecologist and economist) and the rest are calling for a shift in mind set, a shift that may open up public debate on the issue, and perhaps lead to change.

A shift to a steady state economy, an economy that takes the limits of the natural world in account, is certainly not happening now. Yes, sure, there the occasional mention of 'sustainable growth' - but if we go past an optimum point of growth our system is unsustainable in the long term (think centuries).

But ruling out perpetual growth isn't what we're arguing about. The distinction is entirely relevant to the issue of why Czech comes off as an idiot.

No. At some point growth becomes unsustainable because the economy, our demand for goods and services, exceeds the carrying capacity of our ecosystems.

So at some point economic growth, our demand for goods (which come from natural resources) and on which our economy is based, must come to an end and a new steady state way of doing business developed. This in not idiotic. It is essential for the long term survival of our civilization.

Who says I'm not ruling it out? I already pointed out that if we grew energy use enough we'd fry the earth. The circumstance that you refuse to distinguish between ruling it out on 2LoT grounds and ruling it out on other grounds doesn't entitle you to lay your own mental block on that point at my door, and claim I believe in perpetual growth.

Where did I say that? I said unsustainable growth (perpetual growth) is ruled out on the basis of the carrying capacity of ecosystems...which of course are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. I said that growth is not necessarily bad until the point it encroaches into the carrying capacity of the environment, and beyond.

So why won't you quote his evidence that neoclassical economists are pipe dreaming any such thing? Dreaming of growth for another hundred years or even another ten thousand years does not qualify as dreaming of perpetual growth.

Growth is a central element of neoclassical economic thought.

''While growth has been a central element of economic thought since the physiocrats and Adam Smith, the modern analysis of growth using models began only in the middle of the 20th century. Largely thanks to Robert Solow's two articles, ''A contribution to the theory of Economic Growth (1956) and ''Technical Changes and the Aggregate of Production Function....''

Excuse me? Yes, somebody bloody well is arguing that an economy should not grow, and the somebody is you. You're the one who wrote:

"Just as it's a good thing that our economy grows to an optimum level, a level that provides for the needs of all its members, then stops expanding, ever larger and larger."
​

Yes, that is what is actually being said. No, it is not a good thing for an economy to stop growing when all the needs of its members are met. That is too soon to stop growing. It should keep growing beyond that point, until further growth stops making people happier.

That is indeed what I said. The problem is your interpretation of what I said.

Growth is indeed good up to a point. The point where it becomes bad being the carrying capacity of the environment, rather than what 'makes people happy.'

People are certainly not going to be happy when demand exceeds supply.

 

[arkirk]

I think it is largely a matter of putting our best minds to work to deal with the problem squarely and honestly. We are not applying our best science and technological development to the problem of over dependence on fossil fuels for example. Whenever a society applies its best minds to work on problems we have, we get things that entirely change the operational paradigms. A simple example is this internet. Just 25 years ago, we had an internet, but nobody really knew it would become as it has become. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I have seen examples in my lifetime of what happens when we do not cope with social problems in a timely and honest manner. Disease, hunger, war, crowding and pollution...these are the enemies of mankind far more than communism or even Islam.

We should have a climate change department in our government with the power to start making changes...I am not talking about destroying society or sending people to prison camps or exterminating people. What I am saying however is that we need to be producing the infrastructure necessary for our survival. We need a system that can tolerate the aging of society and perhaps a formula for population decrease in the most humane method possible. We need to quit polluting our air. If our world were a basketball, our breatheable atmosphere would be an almost paper thin layer. The same is really true of our massive oceans...but both are being fundamentally altered by our activities. We definitely need to take sufficient action to see the effects of our alteration of the environment (pollution, ecosystem destruction, the pointless struggles we call wars, and our habitual creation of toxic waste) turned around sufficiently to insure the survival of our species. This is not a small matter and procrastination and clinging to neoclassical economic theories above all other considerations is out of the question. I have lived long enough to have several times given up the faith we will have the intellect to make these changes, but I still am able to hope.

What gives me hope is that we have the technology today to accomplish the communications necessary to make the required paradigm shifts in our policies and our infrastructure. We have PLENTY OF MANPOWER in this world, if they would simply quit trying to kill each other over things like oil and other toxic things that should probably stay buried in the earth. It is up to us to find our way out of the deep hole our narcissistic leaders have pressed us to dig. We can't stop mining overnight. We can't stop industrial agriculture in a decade. Some nuclear power plants may take fifty or more years to properly put to bed. But...we have plenty of manpower. The missing ingredient is understanding each other's motivations. A heightened level of communication might help a lot in that regard.