The end of economic growth.

[Duke Leto]

There are two problems with every "end of economic growth" written from a physics/ecology standpoint.

The first is that you don't actually need to increase resource usage to have real economic growth, using existing resources more efficiently also counts.

The second is that you don't actually need real economic growth to have an increasing standard of living, zero or negative real economic growth increases material well-being as long as the population is declining faster than the real economic output.

Example of #1. Suppose I invent a magic box that makes free energy without emissions or radiation. The price of energy and thus the CPI plummet, we have supply shock deflation. So long as the nominal GDP doesn't fall at a faster rate than the price level, we have real economic growth! You don't have to hypothesize magic boxes though, Paul Krugman has this article on getting more bang for your buck by making cargo ships move more slowly. Put a higher price on resource use, via market or via edict, and you can get the same output with less resource use.

Example of #2. Compare the growth rates of Japan and the Philippines in the early 1980s. Japan was not doing remarkably better in growth rates than the Philippines at the time but it was getting richer faster because population growth was basically zero compared to the Philippines. See per capita change here. Japanese folks get about 10% richer in 4 years, Filipinos stagnate.

So the big issue is arresting population growth.

 

[untermensche]

Economic growth over the last 45 years has meant the rich get richer.

And there has been amazing economic growth.

But for the vast majority of people this growth is invisible. They have had decline.

A decline in education, in infrastructure, in economic opportunity.

And the growth of the 1% of Americans over that time is because their pissboys, corporations, have been able to always find fresh poor people to exploit.

As far as physics goes, all one needs to know is that some resources are far more finite than others.

Oil is far more finite than solar energy. Far more finite than wind energy. Far more finite than the thermal energy at the center of the planet.

We are only stuck on the energy of oil because the 1% want it that way.

 

[barbos]

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?

So You don't know what 2LoT is, OK.

 

[DBT]

I am all for sustainable economy and slowing down population growth but It has nothing to do with 2LoT, so stop using it.

Stop saying it hasn't got anything to do with 2LoT, because it has.

Nothing escapes entropy. As everything is subject to entropy, no matter how efficient our systems and our economy (fossil fuels are burnt and dissipated throughout the environment in unusable form, for example), it requires the constant production of raw materials to meet the needs of industry. Crossing the line from sustainable use to unsustainable consumption mean that currently humanity is using the equivalent of 1.5 planets to support its activities.

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.

It's certainly possible...but who in the position of make policy changes is actually talking about it? Virtually nobody. If the subject is brought up, they look at you like you're complete idiot. 'Of course we need growth' the alternative is 'stagnation' they bark.

 

[steve_bnk]

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?

So You don't know what 2LoT is, OK.

Nice try.

2lot Is the prohibition against perpetual motion. There are no lossless process. 1LOT alone does not prohibit perpetual motion. People tried to achieve perpetual motion using 1LOT.

Or the Clausius - Kelvin statement, all of the heat transfered from a source to a sink can not be used to do work. Entropy.

The idea that mass change ( food to people) can grow without bound with a fixed energy limit is a violation of conservation.

If I attach a n electrical generator to an electrical motor on a common shaft, wire the generator output to the motor, mechanically spin up the system, and have the otr keep the gerator turning?

The physics of the economy is analogous to a motor....

By all means explain what 1lot is and how a physical economic system is somehow exempt from entropy..

 

[barbos]

Stop saying it hasn't got anything to do with 2LoT, because it has.

Nothing escapes entropy. As everything is subject to entropy, no matter how efficient our systems and our economy (fossil fuels are burnt and dissipated throughout the environment in unusable form, for example), it requires the constant production of raw materials to meet the needs of industry. Crossing the line from sustainable use to unsustainable consumption mean that currently humanity is using the equivalent of 1.5 planets to support its activities.

You really need to take some introductory course or something on thermodynamics.

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.

It's certainly possible...but who in the position of make policy changes is actually talking about it? Virtually nobody. If the subject is brought up, they look at you like you're complete idiot. 'Of course we need growth' the alternative is 'stagnation' they bark.

Nature will make policy changes for us

 

[barbos]

So You don't know what 2LoT is, OK.

Nice try.

2lot Is the prohibition against perpetual motion.

Nope, it's prohibition of perpetual motion machines of second kind.

There are no lossless process.

Well, that's not entirely correct and more importantly irrelevant here.

1LOT alone does not prohibit perpetual motion. People tried to achieve perpetual motion using 1LOT.

"perpetual motion" has different meanings.

Or the Clausius - Kelvin statement, all of the heat transfered from a source to a sink can not be used to do work. Entropy.

That's correct.

The idea that mass change ( food to people) can grow without bound with a fixed energy limit is a violation of conservation.

But 2LOT is not a conservation law. You are using 1LOT when you promised 2LOT.

If I attach a n electrical generator to an electrical motor on a common shaft, wire the generator output to the motor, mechanically spin up the system, and have the otr keep the gerator turning?

What does it have to do with anything?

The physics of the economy is analogous to a motor....

No, it is not.

By all means explain what 1lot is and how a physical economic system is somehow exempt from entropy..

Fuck! 1lot has nothing to do with entropy.
Look pall, I have PhD in physics, so stop this bullshitting.

 

[barbos]

Average Human in US consumes about 3kw of electricity (actually less than that) plus energy in the form of food which is energy equivalent of 200 grams of fat per day. which adds to roughly 70-100 watts I mean human is essentially old CRT TV.
Let be generous and say 5kw per person, this includes everything and everybody, even Donald Trump and Kardashians.
5kw is about 30 m^2 of 100% efficient solar panels per person, I accounted for no light at night by using 6x factor to 5m^2.

So from a point of view of physics you need only 30 m^2 of area per person.
This a limit physics puts on this. In reality of course, there are more severe limits than this, but they have nothing to do with physics. They have to do with technology and environment.

 

[steve_bnk]

Nice try.

2lot Is the prohibition against perpetual motion.

Nope, it's prohibition of perpetual motion machines of second kind.

There are no lossless process.

Well, that's not entirely correct and more importantly irrelevant here.

1LOT alone does not prohibit perpetual motion. People tried to achieve perpetual motion using 1LOT.

"perpetual motion" has different meanings.

Or the Clausius - Kelvin statement, all of the heat transfered from a source to a sink can not be used to do work. Entropy.

That's correct.

The idea that mass change ( food to people) can grow without bound with a fixed energy limit is a violation of conservation.

But 2LOT is not a conservation law. You are using 1LOT when you promised 2LOT.

If I attach a n electrical generator to an electrical motor on a common shaft, wire the generator output to the motor, mechanically spin up the system, and have the otr keep the gerator turning?

What does it have to do with anything?

The physics of the economy is analogous to a motor....

No, it is not.

By all means explain what 1lot is and how a physical economic system is somehow exempt from entropy..

Fuck! 1lot has nothing to do with entropy.
Look pall, I have PhD in physics, so stop this bullshitting.

'...What does it have to do with anything?..'

It has to do with 2lot and entropy. Anyone who understood 2lot would see that. The motor generator example eis an lectromechanical equivalent to Clausius and Kelvin's version of entropy with heat flow and available work.

'...No, it is not...'

Specifics of why not. The physics of the economy is an engine. Engine is a common metaphor to describe systems and thermodynamics. The economy does what is called limit cycles in systems. It is like a gas engine without a flywheel to smooth it out.

All systems and processes have a thermodynamic equivalent model. An audio amp can not transfer all the energy drawn from the mains to work moving air with a speaker. Thermodynamically equivalent to Clausius-Kelvin definition of entropy in transferring heat from a source to a sink and doing work.


Lossless systems? It all depends on where you draw the system thermodynamic boundary. You can put a circulating current into a superconducting ring that appears to never diminish, but when you try to do work with it entropy applies.

'...But 2LOT is not a conservation law. You are using 1LOT when you promised 2LOT...'

Ok I should have said thermodynamics instead of conservation, nut it changes nothing.

You probably are just using text book definitions and have never really applied it. 1lot and 2lot are inseparable.

As to types of perpetual motion machines, here on Earth there are no known exceptions to entropy in any real process. All systems left to themselves run down, and you can never get an efficiency of 1 or greater. 2Lot was developed because 1lot alone allows for theoretical perpetual motion machines which are impossible to build.

The last was a typo.'

'...Look pall, I have PhD in physics, so stop this bullshitting..' r

Resorting to authority by academic credentials, usually the refuge of last resort. What work have you done with thermodynamics and accomplished with it...outside of textbook problems

As to PHD, I have worked with all sorts. Having a PHD means you passed tests on textbook knowledge and wrote a dissertation It says nothing about comprehension. To that you still have not defined 2lot you think 2lot does not apply. I expect you can not explain your objection.

How is it that 1lot 2lot would not apply to the creation of artificial foods...and the physics of the economy...pal.

I am a PHD and I say it does not apply is a non answer....

If you want to debate thermo further start a thread on science.

 

[DBT]

You really need to take some introductory course or something on thermodynamics.

Doubt it. Nothing new here. Everything in the Universe is subject to entropy. That of course includes human [economic] activity.

This is nothing new, it's been explored in numerous ways.

One example being:
Economic entropy
'In economic thermodynamics, economic entropy is conceptual term used in various ways to represent entropy in economic systems.''

''In cross-over terminology to that of the phraseologies related to standard entropy, some will argue that each step in the reduction of economic entropy (in the economic system) is made at the expense of an increase in the entropy of nature (of the surroundings).''

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.

A sustainable economy is certainly possible...but not a perpetually growing economy that must necessarily grow at the expense of an increase in the entropy in nature (the World's ecosystems and natural resources)

That is the point.

Nature will make policy changes for us

True enough.

 

[barbos]

I am a PHD and I say it does not apply is a non answer....

must be in literature.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

My statement is true; the reasons you gave are not substantive; bringing up additional constraints about ecosystems means you're ignoring the statement's restricting itself to 2LoT considerations.

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.

I.e., reasons other than 2LoT.

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.

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.

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.

We have to distinguish two issues. First, some countries' birthrates have fallen below replacement level. Just because a stable population is a good thing doesn't mean a falling population is.

Second, some countries aren't managing their inter-generational subsidies competently, and their politicians find artificially raising the ratio of young workers to retired people to be a quick fix that will make dealing intelligently with the problem something they can foist off onto a subsequent administration. I.e., they're running a demographic Ponzi scheme. A neoclassical economist is probably going to recognize a Ponzi scheme when he sees one.

This mind set of 'economic growth' is essential is not likely to change if and when the world economy achieves equilibrium.

From context, I take it you mean when the population achieves equilibrium. This mind set of 'economic growth' is essential shouldn't change, if continuing the growth will make people happier, which it will if there are still poor people in 2050, which there will be.

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''

Get a grip! You might as well say "Reagan said trees cause pollution" contains the claim "trees cause pollution" so there's hardly a distinction at all.

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.

Huh? That's not misleading! The availability of energy is no barrier to growth! Humans are currently expanding our energy use at 10¹⁹ J per year: ten billion billion Joules. If we repeat that expansion every year for 5 billion more years, at the end we'll be using 5 x 10²⁸ J per year, which would instantly fry the earth's surface. That's 200,000 times less than the energy output of the sun!

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[steve_bnk]

I am a PHD and I say it does not apply is a non answer....

must be in literature.

I was talking about you, ....

 

[barbos]

must be in literature.

I was talking about you, ....

You forgot to put in quotes it then.

Bullshit you post here does not really deserve any answers.
Well, maybe "You are not even wrong", how about that?

 

[steve_bnk]

'...Huh? That's not misleading! The availability of energy is no barrier to growth! Humans are currently expanding our energy use at 1019 J per year: ten billion billion Joules. If we repeat that expansion every year for 5 billion more years, at the end we'll be using 5 x 1028 J per year, which would instantly fry the earth's surface. That's 200,000 times less than the energy output of the sun!..'



That is the Hannity conservative what me worry full speed ahead attitude.


At today's population and energy usage it is feasible to switch over to sustainable energy. Yes,the sun puts out a lot energy, But only part of it hits the Earth. And that pesky 2lot affects energy conversion efficiency.


From my 1980s energy text at the energy consumption of the time global uranium reserves would last around 700 years. In the USA we have gas and coal reserves that will last for centuries if we limited usage to the USA.

The problem is energy growth. Up until recent decades the USA was the major energy consumer especially oil.

I read something in the past that if China doubled its per capita beer consumption it would consume the Canadian grain harvest. If the entire global population were raised to the average American standard of living the global ecosystem would collapse.

Govt projections are the USA will cease to be a net food exporter. Our mid west aquifers are drawing down. Another projection is that in 50 years or so Southern California will run out if water. The major source of water for LA is an aqueduct from the Colorado River. Population growth will exceed capacity. It is not just the aqueduct capacity, it is the total demand on the Colorado River.

India is reaching its limit of water for agriculture. A CIA study predicts after oil the conflicts will be over water.


If you look at all the indicators, it would seem the wide open global economic growth is fundamentally unsupportable.

Derive a per capita energy consumption based on the USA inclusive of home usage, energy for utilities like water and sewage, agriculture, support functions, waste management, energy to produce all the electronic gadgets and power them, and multiply by global population and growth estimates.

 

[steve_bnk]

I was talking about you, ....

You forgot to put in quotes it then.

Bullshit you post here does not really deserve any answers.
Well, maybe "You are not even wrong", how about that?

At least you are consistent with your posts on other threads.

 

[Bomb#20]

'...Huh? That's not misleading! The availability of energy is no barrier to growth! Humans are currently expanding our energy use at 10¹⁹ J per year: ten billion billion Joules. If we repeat that expansion every year for 5 billion more years, at the end we'll be using 5 x 10²⁸ J per year, which would instantly fry the earth's surface. That's 200,000 times less than the energy output of the sun!..'

That is the Hannity conservative what me worry full speed ahead attitude.

Dude! I didn't say it was a wise thing to do; all I said is that insufficient energy isn't one of the reasons not to do it. Of course there are many other reasons not to go full speed ahead.

At today's population and energy usage it is feasible to switch over to sustainable energy. Yes,the sun puts out a lot energy, But only part of it hits the Earth. And that pesky 2lot affects energy conversion efficiency.

True, only part of it hits the Earth. So, are you saying that we're compelled to stop growing our economy early, because we're bumping up against a fundamental law of physics, a law governing everything in the universe, a law that we can get around by launching solar collectors into space?

From my 1980s energy text at the energy consumption of the time global uranium reserves would last around 700 years.

We have thirty thousand years worth of proven uranium reserves. All estimates in the range of hundreds of years presume the primitive conventional practice of fissioning the U-235 and throwing away the U-238. We don't have to do that. We've known how to build breeder reactors for seventy years.

I read something in the past that if China doubled its per capita beer consumption it would consume the Canadian grain harvest. [etc.]

Yes, there are lots of obstacles to growth other than fundamental physics. That's not what's in dispute.

 

[J842P]

This a limit physics puts on this. In reality of course, there are more severe limits than this, but they have nothing to do with physics. They have to do with technology and environment.

Yes, exactly.

 

[DBT]

This a limit physics puts on this. In reality of course, there are more severe limits than this, but they have nothing to do with physics. They have to do with technology and environment.

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.

 

[DBT]

My statement is true; the reasons you gave are not substantive; bringing up additional constraints about ecosystems means you're ignoring the statement's restricting itself to 2LoT considerations.

2LoT considerations are inseparable to conditions within an ecosystem, which includes solar input. You can't endlessly keep adding energy to make the ecosystem be more productive, producing more and more food and resources forever. Considering the system as a whole, it can't support perpetual growth.

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.

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, you can't wear a million pairs of shoes, you can't eat non stop all day long. At some point the economy achieves equilibrium..and that of course is the end of economic growth. Growth is basically driven by two things: growing demand for products and services and/or a growing population.

Get a grip! You might as well say "Reagan said trees cause pollution" contains the claim "trees cause pollution" so there's hardly a distinction at all.

Not the same. 2LoT being inseparable from the conditions and limitations found in ecosystems.

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. The point of Czech's book is to show why perpetual economic growth is the a pipe dream of neoclassical economists who appear to exclude ecosystems (the ultimate source of capital) from economic activity. And he does a good job of it.

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.