Economy vs. ecology in capitalism

[Unimatrix11]

So, in our system, the econmoy has to constantly grow (by ´virtue´ of interest), right?

Econmic growth usually entails more ressource consumption and more waste.
So, some ecologists say, we need to raise efficiency - use less ressources and energy per unit produced. Like one of my profs.

Say the economy just grows (leaving the current troubles aside for a moment) by just 2% each year, generating the same growth in ressource and energy consumption and waste production, without increased eco-efficiency. Let it do so for, say, 50 years - i mean thats what we all want, right? We want the economy to steadily grow, or else we will loose jobs... So the economy grows by 2% p.a. for the next 50 years: In order to keep energy and ressource consumption and waste production at the same level, by what factor would we need to increase our eco-efficiency in order to keep your ´ecological footprint´ (which is already too big) the same? To spare you the math (but please, do check it yourself): By a factor of 27, roughly. So what would need 100 kw/h today would have to consume less than 4 kw/h in 50 years.

So can we save the earth in capitalism?

[One_more_turn]

Of course, as long as we assign monetary values for the environment, capitalism will be able to adjust.

[Unimatrix11]

And will we do that? I mean who is gonna start with that? China or the US? I say: If it endangers economic growth, nobody will.

[KrazyHorse]

So the economy grows by 2% p.a. for the next 50 years: In order to keep energy and ressource consumption and waste production at the same level, by what factor would we need to increase our eco-efficiency in order to keep your ´ecological footprint´ (which is already too big) the same? To spare you the math (but please, do check it yourself): By a factor of 27, roughly.

No.

Learn how exponential growth works.

[Unimatrix11]

yepp, KH, thanks again, it is 2.7x not 27x - still it´s only a matter of time, until (exponential) growth outpaces any efficiency gains, even if all that could be done in order to raise it, would be done (with is a totally different story).

[KrazyHorse]

still it´s only a matter of time, until (exponential) growth outpaces any efficiency gains, even if all that could be done in order to raise it, would be done

How the **** does this follow?

If we allow your little model then all "efficiency" has to do is keep increasing at the same pace that the economy grows.

[Unimatrix11]

Can efficiency grow infinetely ?

[KrazyHorse]

Can economic activity?

[KrazyHorse]

Look, dude, you're applying the simplest possible model to growth: indefinitely prolonged constant exponential growth. Why should any serious person believe the consequences of this?

[Unimatrix11]

Thanks, KH ! No, it cant. But it is a premise for capitalism to work

Because one has to if one wants to believe in the sustainablity of capitalism - it needs constant exponential growth in order to work.

[KrazyHorse]

Thanks, KH ! No, it cant. But it is a premise for capitalism to work

Because one has to if one wants to believe in the sustainablity of capitalism - it needs constant exponential growth in order to work.

I have no idea what sort of cracked-out capitalist philosophy you're discussing here.

[Unimatrix11]

What? Are you denying that all capitalist societies have one common goal, and that this goal is economic growth at any cost? You do know that in capitalistic societies, any investment needs to be profitable, right ? At least as profitable as the basic interst rate is (Liquidity trap). Right now it´s about zero, but that is certainly an exception (unfortunately). 2% is actually a rather conservative estimated average for 50 years. We simply do not have the option of a ´steady state´ economy as things are right now. But in the long run, growth has to stop. I mean, how absurd and anti-conventional this may sound, just shows, how much we already have taken it for granted, that our econmies have to grow all the time.

(Dont expect any answer from me anymore, today, as it is 1am here, and i will hit the sack now).

[KrazyHorse]

What? Are you denying that all capitalist societies have one common goal, and that this goal is economic growth at any cost?

Yes. Obviously, unless you want to discount every existing and former capitalist society as not "true" examples of capitalism.

You do know that in capitalistic societies, any investment needs to be profitable, right ? At least as profitable as the basic interst rate is (Liquidity trap). Right now it´s about zero, but that is certainly an exception (unfortunately). 2% is actually a rather conservative estimated average for 50 years.

Errr....why are you claiming that the rate of return on invested capital is equal to the rate of economic growth?

We simply do not have the option of a ´steady state´ economy as things are right now. But in the long run, growth has to stop.

Neither of these statements is true.

I mean, how absurd and anti-conventional this may sound, just shows, how much we already have taken it for granted, that our econmies have to grow all the time.

No, we'd like them to grow all the time. Because most of us want more stuff.

(Dont expect any answer from me anymore, today, as it is 1am here, and i will hit the sack now).

Sure. Post some ridiculous nonsense and then go to bed.

[FrostyBoy]

This is quite a good video on STUFF.

[Unimatrix11]

KH, it would be nice, if you put a single point in your post - as is you sound like renitent child. For example, economic growth has obviously a connection to the capital return rate, since that returned capital needs to be reinvested - and you know this. As well, as you do know, that a capitalistic economy goes into crisis when it hits zero-growth. Simply dismissing what i wrote as ´rediculous nonsense´ and then blaming me for going to bed at 1am - i dont even know what to call that. Maybe you should have used the time to give what i said a serious thought and, if you´d feel the need to, prepare a somewhat convincing debunkment.

Thanks for the video, FrostyBoy. I havent seen that one before. Things like these should make it into class rooms.