The end of economic growth.

[Jayjay]

And if that doesn't happen?

If it doesn't happen then we'll have to switch over while some are still poor. But we might as well hold off for as long as possible, so that as few people as possible are still poor when the growth ends.

There is another alternative: maintain growth for the select rich by making more people poor. Currently it seems that free market economy tends to increase inequality, but it's fine because there is enough overall growth that the poorest still get a little bit better off. That might not last forever.

 

[Axulus]

And if the root of your disagreement with them is simply that you figure it's a problem for the here and now, what evidence do you have as to when growth is going to be stopped by finite resource limits?

This can't be emphasized enough. This is the heart of the matter. All the BS about unsustainability and resource depletion is just a distraction. No one argues growth can go on forever and resources are infinite. The question is when will the limits become a problem and, when they do, can the economy at whatever size it happens to be maintain that level? What game changing technologies will be discovered? Sustainable net-positive energy generation from fusion reactors? 3-D printers so advanced that they come close to the star trek replicators? Battery technology breakthrough leading to near complete phase-out of the combustible engine? Virtual reality nearly indistinguishable from the real world? Perfect driverless cars? Advanced AI? Quantum computers?

Fusion power alone could allow for manufacture of hydrocarbon fuels, desalinate near unlimited amounts of water, and probably allow food to be manufactured indoors on a massive scale (with additional research). Virtual reality nearly indistinguishable from the real world and advanced 3-D printing technology would substantially decrease need for and use of transportation. Perfect driver-less cars would substantially reduce resources for transportation as well (automated vehicles could deliver goods at prices cheaper than can be offered at bricks and mortar establishments, reducing need to go shopping and reducing transportation use further still).

 

[Axulus]

If it doesn't happen then we'll have to switch over while some are still poor. But we might as well hold off for as long as possible, so that as few people as possible are still poor when the growth ends.

There is another alternative: maintain growth for the select rich by making more people poor. Currently it seems that free market economy tends to increase inequality, but it's fine because there is enough overall growth that the poorest still get a little bit better off. That might not last forever.

If taxes are progressive and make up a high enough portion of GDP (at least 1/3), then the only way that the poor could be made worse off is if the tax money isn't spent wisely. The incomes of the poor could remain flat or decline a little but it can be fully compensated for with the flush coffers of the government.

 

[Bomb#20]

If it doesn't happen then we'll have to switch over while some are still poor. But we might as well hold off for as long as possible, so that as few people as possible are still poor when the growth ends.

There is another alternative: maintain growth for the select rich by making more people poor.

Well, sure, that's another alternative. But why would we want to do that? Who is advocating doing that? And, if you're assuming something is going to make that happen anyway, how would ending growth early prevent more people from becoming poor?

Currently it seems that free market economy tends to increase inequality...

Huh? Why does it seem that way to you? Currently inequality is decreasing rather quickly; it's been falling pretty steadily ever since September 9, 1976, which was the day the number one cause of inequality in modern times turned off. The world's GINI index is at about its lowest point since it was invented. It's probably at its lowest point since the first H. sapiens population grew numerous enough to split up into different tribes.

 

[Axulus]

There is another alternative: maintain growth for the select rich by making more people poor.

Well, sure, that's another alternative. But why would we want to do that? Who is advocating doing that? And, if you're assuming something is going to make that happen anyway, how would ending growth early prevent more people from becoming poor?

Currently it seems that free market economy tends to increase inequality...

Huh? Why does it seem that way to you? Currently inequality is decreasing rather quickly; it's been falling pretty steadily ever since September 9, 1976, which was the day the number one cause of inequality in modern times turned off. The world's GINI index is at about its lowest point since it was invented. It's probably at its lowest point since the first H. sapiens population grew numerous enough to split up into different tribes.

I'm having trouble finding a source to the gini coefficient, do you have one? Seems like charts on Google image search are all inconsistent with each other.

Regardless, here is a good related article for those interested:

Income Inequality Is Not Rising Globally. It's Falling.

Income inequality has surged as a political and economic issue, but the numbers don’t show that inequality is rising from a global perspective. Yes, the problem has become more acute within most individual nations, yet income inequality for the world as a whole has been falling for most of the last 20 years. It’s a fact that hasn’t been noted often enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/u...ing-globally-its-falling-.html?abt=0002&abg=1

 

[DBT]

The simple truth is, perpetual growth is impossible within a finite system. That's not idiotic. It's just a fact. The second law of thermodynamics applies to economic activity in all its forms. Natural resources are finite, supply of raw materials is limited, systems run down. Perpetual growth is an illusion.

This is either blindly ignorant or entirely irrelevant. What is and isn't a "resource" depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is human ingenuity. 200 years ago oil was just smelly dirt. It took invention and progress in many areas of human knowledge to magically transform oil into a "resource" that could meet human wants and needs.

But, yes, if you believe most models of the universe we are all hopeless doomed some billions of years in the future. So what.

Ignorant or irrelevant? Not at all. There is no escaping the fact that infinite perpetual growth is not possible within a finite system, whatever happens to be defined as a natural resource, food, land, potable water, etc, at any given moment is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because these resources are not perpetually expanding. A given area of land can only support so much biomass before ecosystem collapses. It seems to me that neoclassical economists think that human activity is completely divorced from the natural environment. That is an illusion. It is not only ignorant, it is dangerous.

 

[DBT]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm writing about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, and you're imagining that I'm not really talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all, but instead giving you a stupid argument for why perpetual growth is possible.

Not so. I'm responding to what you said, but in terms of the relationship of the environment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

For example, you said: ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' - and I responded by pointing out that it is not only a matter of solar energy, but ecosystems have there own limitations to growth.

Which means your proposition is false. It's false because it only takes a single factor into account. So, yes, there is a communication problem.

The problem is basically that any given area of land can only support a finite biomass. So if an area supports 100 thousand ton biomass of plant life, this plant life cannot support 100 thousand tons of herbivores. Perhaps only a thousand tons, A thousand tons of herbivore flesh cannot support a thousand tons of carnivores. Perhaps only ten tons of carnivore. At these ratios the system is sustainable for the long term, but if something gets out of balance, disease wipes our most of the carnivores, herbivore numbers increase and eat the plant life at an unsustainable rate. Before long the food supply runs short and starvation cuts down herbivore numbers and plants are able to replenish.

So solar energy fuels the system, but the dynamics of environment determines carrying capacity.

Human activity is not exempt from the rule of environment, regardless of what we believe our technology can achieve. Your remark ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' ignored environmental limitations.

Sure, you go on to include other factors, but remarks such as the quote are irrelevant. You should not have even said it.

 

[DBT]

And if the root of your disagreement with them is simply that you figure it's a problem for the here and now, what evidence do you have as to when growth is going to be stopped by finite resource limits?

This can't be emphasized enough. This is the heart of the matter. All the BS about unsustainability and resource depletion is just a distraction. No one argues growth can go on forever and resources are infinite.

There are those who say there is no limit to economic growth. And at what point is industry going to call a halt? Carrying capacity of the environment is a fact, so is sustainability.

The question is; At what point do we say that we have reached the limits of environmental carrying capacity? And even when it is reached, are we able to stop growing our economy? Can we stop growth when the alternative is seen as stagnation?

 

[Axulus]

This can't be emphasized enough. This is the heart of the matter. All the BS about unsustainability and resource depletion is just a distraction. No one argues growth can go on forever and resources are infinite.

There are those who say there is no limit to economic growth. And at what point is industry going to call a halt? Carrying capacity of the environment is a fact, so is sustainability.

The question is; At what point do we say that we have reached the limits of environmental carrying capacity? And even when it is reached, are we able to stop growing our economy? Can we stop growth when the alternative is seen as stagnation?

Who says that growth must necessarily stop when holding environmental carrying capacity constant (or, stated another way, that all growth necessarily means putting a greater burden on environmental carrying capacity)? As I mentioned in my post about the game changing technologies (which includes additional things that no one may have even thought of), economic growth can increase even when environmental carrying capacity and resource use is reduced.

 

[steve_bnk]

Exactly.

Adding Free Market competition reduces cost and increases efficiency lowering demand for labor as population grows

Result, corporations are making record profits while middle class wages stagnate and middle class jobs decline..

Democrats and Republicans blame each other for the lack if growth, but it is a structural problem.

In the long run it means instability and social upheaval. It doesn't take an historian to see that. Look at Greece.

 

[DBT]

Who says that growth must necessarily stop when holding environmental carrying capacity constant (or, stated another way, that all growth necessarily means putting a greater burden on environmental carrying capacity)?

What specific forms of growth are you talking about? Can you give examples?

As I mentioned in my post about the game changing technologies (which includes additional things that no one may have even thought of), economic growth can increase even when environmental carrying capacity and resource use is reduced.

Technology certainly increases efficiency and extends a period of growth, but growth still cannot surpass the inherit limitations of a finite environment. In other words, no matter how efficiently we learn to use our natural resources, they are finite. Efficiency broadens and extends our economic growth in relation to carrying capacity, but cannot transcend the principle of a finite carrying capacity .

Hence my questions; At what point do we say that we have reached the limits of environmental carrying capacity? And even when it is reached, are we able to stop growing our economy? Can we stop growth when the alternative is seen as stagnation?

 

[Bomb#20]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I'm writing about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, and you're imagining that I'm not really talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics at all, but instead giving you a stupid argument for why perpetual growth is possible.

Not so. I'm responding to what you said, but in terms of the relationship of the environment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

For example, you said: ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' - and I responded by pointing out that it is not only a matter of solar energy, but ecosystems have there own limitations to growth.

Which means your proposition is false. It's false because it only takes a single factor into account.

That's what "As far as X is concerned" means. A statement making its own point instead of making some point you'd rather focus on doesn't make the statement false.

The problem is basically that any given area of land can only support a finite biomass. So if an area supports 100 thousand ton biomass of plant life, this plant life cannot support 100 thousand tons of herbivores. Perhaps only a thousand tons, A thousand tons of herbivore flesh cannot support a thousand tons of carnivores. Perhaps only ten tons of carnivore. At these ratios the system is sustainable for the long term, but if something gets out of balance, disease wipes our most of the carnivores, herbivore numbers increase and eat the plant life at an unsustainable rate. Before long the food supply runs short and starvation cuts down herbivore numbers and plants are able to replenish.

So solar energy fuels the system, but the dynamics of environment determines carrying capacity.

Wait, you're talking about thermodynamic inefficiency of the food chain? What's that got to do with economic growth? Your economist foes are talking about long-term growth of goods and services, not long-term growth of the number of carnivores. When the human population stops growing, estimated for about 2050, the need for more biomass stops growing.

Human activity is not exempt from the rule of environment, regardless of what we believe our technology can achieve. Your remark ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' ignored environmental limitations.

Sure, you go on to include other factors, but remarks such as the quote are irrelevant. You should not have even said it.

You keep treating ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' as if it meant ''We can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out''. That's not what it means.

 

[arkirk]

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.

It is not entropy but toxic self poisoning. Some of the coal will still be in the ground when there is no more human race. Not all potentials need to be exhausted for us to exhaust ourselves due to our own unique requirement for certain chemical environmental factors to be stable. Things like minimally uncontaminated water, air, food, land etc. For example, nuclear winter is not the exhaustion of the resources. It is only a temporary condition that could mean curtains for MANKIND.

 

[DBT]

Not so. I'm responding to what you said, but in terms of the relationship of the environment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

For example, you said: ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' - and I responded by pointing out that it is not only a matter of solar energy, but ecosystems have there own limitations to growth.

Which means your proposition is false. It's false because it only takes a single factor into account.

That's what "As far as X is concerned" means. A statement making its own point instead of making some point you'd rather focus on doesn't make the statement false.

The statement is false for the reasons I gave. The correct statement should have been: ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we cannot keep growing our economy until the sun burns out, because we live in a finite world and our ecosystems do not permit perpetual growth.

That's what you should have said in order for the statement to be true and factual. Solar power is constant, it enables growth, but our environment does not allow endless expansion, endless growth.

Wait, you're talking about thermodynamic inefficiency of the food chain? What's that got to do with economic growth? Your economist foes are talking about long-term growth of goods and services, not long-term growth of the number of carnivores. When the human population stops growing, estimated for about 2050, the need for more biomass stops growing.

Not the inefficiency of the food chain, but its limits. Limits placed by land area, water supply, fertility, and so on, which determines growing capacity, density, etc. No matter how efficient the system, a finite land mass places an upper limit to expansion.

As for the prediction that world population will stabilize by 2050, that is probably so. But the question is: are the neoclassical economists going too be happy about having a stable population figure? I doubt it. With a mind set that a non growing economy is an economy in stagnation, they are going to want to stimulate growth.

It's happening now. Developed nations with low birth rates wish to encourage higher birth rates by offering financial inducements. Or increasing immigration from developing nations. This mind set of 'economic growth' is essential is not likely to change if and when the world economy achieves equilibrium.

You keep treating ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out'' as if it meant ''We can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out''. That's not what it means.

The distinction is so fine that it's hardly a distinction at all. The wording of - ''As far as 2LoT is concerned we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out' - includes the claim that ''we can keep growing our economy until the sun burns out....as far as ''As far as 2LoT is concerned''

It's misleading because it seeks to give the impression that the availability of energy is no barrier to growth. That is what I object to.
I object to the statement because it is not only misleading, it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the availability of energy in not the only factor that rules out perpetual growth.

Not that I'm against growth, per se. It is a good thing that a child grows into an adult, but then growth should stop. 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. That's not to say scientific discovery should not continue as far and as long as possible. It should, perhaps without limit.

 

[barbos]

I am all for sustainable economy and slowing down population growth but It has nothing to do with 2LoT, so stop using it.
Now about sustainable economy, it's perfectly possible to have it and I believe we will have it.There is nothing which prevents us from making food fully or at least partially synthetic without any need for arable land.

 

[steve_bnk]

I am all for sustainable economy and slowing down population growth but It has nothing to do with 2LoT, so stop using it.
Now about sustainable economy, it's perfectly possible to have it and I believe we will have it.There is nothing which prevents us from making food fully or at least partially synthetic without any need for arable land.

2LOT does apply.

For a fixed amount of renewable resources there is a curve of population versus the amount of food water, goods and services per person.

Everything ultimately coes down to available mass and energy in varying forms. The ecosystem is powered by the Sun.

The average amount of energy incident o the Earth's surface sets a bound for food production. The Sun powers the evaporation cycle that renews fresh surface water. 2LOT is inescapable which is why it is such a powerful tool.

If you want to sustute calories made from artifical sources then you also have to supply an equivalent to the solar power. The energy conversion process making artificial food may be more or less effeciet than natural farming.

A renewable energy economy would have a fixed energy budget. Again 2LOT.

 

[dismal]

I am all for sustainable economy and slowing down population growth but It has nothing to do with 2LoT, so stop using it.
Now about sustainable economy, it's perfectly possible to have it and I believe we will have it.There is nothing which prevents us from making food fully or at least partially synthetic without any need for arable land.

I am comfortable predicting we will not have an unsustainable economy forever, anyway.

Of course, I would also argue that the economy changes constantly and we should have no desire or intent to sustain it.

 

[barbos]

I am all for sustainable economy and slowing down population growth but It has nothing to do with 2LoT, so stop using it.
Now about sustainable economy, it's perfectly possible to have it and I believe we will have it.There is nothing which prevents us from making food fully or at least partially synthetic without any need for arable land.

2LOT does apply.

For a fixed amount of renewable resources there is a curve of population versus the amount of food water, goods and services per person.

Everything ultimately coes down to available mass and energy in varying forms. The ecosystem is powered by the Sun.

The average amount of energy incident o the Earth's surface sets a bound for food production. The Sun powers the evaporation cycle that renews fresh surface water. 2LOT is inescapable which is why it is such a powerful tool.

If you want to sustute calories made from artifical sources then you also have to supply an equivalent to the solar power. The energy conversion process making artificial food may be more or less effeciet than natural farming.

A renewable energy economy would have a fixed energy budget. Again 2LOT.

You don't know what 2LoT is, do you?

 

[Bomb#20]

Currently inequality is decreasing rather quickly; it's been falling pretty steadily ever since September 9, 1976, which was the day the number one cause of inequality in modern times turned off. The world's GINI index is at about its lowest point since it was invented. It's probably at its lowest point since the first H. sapiens population grew numerous enough to split up into different tribes.

I'm having trouble finding a source to the gini coefficient, do you have one?

Not in one place, just articles like the one you posted.

Seems like charts on Google image search are all inconsistent with each other.

Yes. The underlying reason seems to be that doing the calculation wrong is a lot less labor-intensive than doing it right. Those charts make the fundamental error of counting a person's contribution to the world GINI index differently depending on which side of some border he lives on. There are of course a lot more ways to take which side of a border someone lives on into account than ways to not take it into account, hence the endless inconsistency among the charts.

Income Inequality Is Not Rising Globally. It's Falling.

Income inequality has surged as a political and economic issue, but the numbers don’t show that inequality is rising from a global perspective. Yes, the problem has become more acute within most individual nations, yet income inequality for the world as a whole has been falling for most of the last 20 years. It’s a fact that hasn’t been noted often enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/u...ing-globally-its-falling-.html?abt=0002&abg=1

It's pretty much an inevitability when a billion of the world's poorest people are getting richer at 7% per year. That effect will turn off once China becomes a first-world country, so inequality may stop declining in another 20 or 30 years, unless other poor regions get their acts together too.

 

[steve_bnk]

2LOT does apply.

For a fixed amount of renewable resources there is a curve of population versus the amount of food water, goods and services per person.

Everything ultimately coes down to available mass and energy in varying forms. The ecosystem is powered by the Sun.

The average amount of energy incident o the Earth's surface sets a bound for food production. The Sun powers the evaporation cycle that renews fresh surface water. 2LOT is inescapable which is why it is such a powerful tool.

If you want to sustute calories made from artifical sources then you also have to supply an equivalent to the solar power. The energy conversion process making artificial food may be more or less effeciet than natural farming.

A renewable energy economy would have a fixed energy budget. Again 2LOT.

You don't know what 2LoT is, do you?

I rely on thermodynamics. Allelectrical circuit theories and functions are thermodynamiccontinuity equations.


The borders of the USA represent athermodynamic boundary. Mass and energy entering the border, internalmass and energy, and mass and energy leaving binders at all timesmust e in a numerical balance.


Draw a bubble around your body. Massand energy in, mass and energy in the body, and mass and energy outmust balance.


From conservation photosynthesisconverts solar radiation to plants we eat as food. The photosynthesisprocess has an energy conversion efficient. Our bodies convert plantchemical energy to chemical energy in the body at an efficiency.Photosynthesis and our biological process must satisfy conservation in mass ad energy.




Solar radiation energy xphotosynthesis efficiency X body biology efficiency = body heat andwork in Joules.


Conservation's entropy limit. Whateverprocess you use to create an artificial food it will take moireenergy to create it than energy delivered to the body. If not you get a form of perpetual motion.


My point is in a sustainable energyeconomy there will be an energy budget. That budget will determinefor a given population the amount of food, goods, and services perperson.


The OP is correct. The current paradigmis not sustainable in the long term.


Do you understand that conservation the cornerstone of all engineering, science and technology?