The Impossibility of Growth

[Geronimo]

Please examine US population since 1800
Consider longevity and not only birth rates

You are ****ing retarded

Oh. I see. We are extrapolating from the beginning of the industrial revolution because that's more accurate, especially given how little social change there has been in industrial societies in that time frame in particular. Also, I'd have to agree that, as an optimal path to sustainability, we need to be careful to limit longevity in societies lest the future become some ghastly dystopia where people seldom die young.

Don't give up hope on me just yet OB, I'm certainly willing (especially with your patient assistance) to correct my inadequate understandings of macroeconomics and historical context.

[Felch]

Unsubstantiated bull****.

Here is my astonishing proposal to combat malnutrition: PROPER DISTRIBUTION

Meaning the OGPU redistribute food from all those greedy kulaks?

*ahem* You might have forgotten other benefits:

- partial forestation to prevent erosion
- less use of herbicides, pesticides, etc
- no GMOs necessary
- wildlife adapts more easily

Other benefits of extensive farming? That doesn't make sense.

If you want partial forestation and to prevent erosion, then the answer is intensive, no-till agriculture.
If you want less use of herbicides and pesticides, the best answer would be those nuclear greenhouses (running on blue and red LEDs). That's about as intensive as agriculture gets.
If you want to eliminate GMOs then you're a neo-Luddite ******.
And wildlife adapts to whatever wildlife adapts to. Although we can make it easier for them with a little genetic engineering.

[Fake Boris]

Well, yes, sorry, for the past page and a half you've only been calling people retarded. I've been assuming it's because you think what they posted is wrong, but it might be just pathological.

This is how you joined the discussion:

"Decreases in productivity also don't reduce resource consumption as a whole. What's your point?"

I still don't understand what you're trying to say, or what post of mine you were responding to. Make yourself clear and we can discuss.

Right now you keep jumping in, seemingly responding to claims I don't feel I made.

[Fake Boris]

Oh. I see. We are extrapolating from the beginning of the industrial revolution because that's more accurate, especially given how little social change there has been in industrial societies in that time frame in particular. Also, I'd have to agree that, as an optimal path to sustainability, we need to be careful to limit longevity in societies lest the future become some ghastly dystopia where people seldom die young.

Don't give up hope on me just yet OB, I'm certainly willing (especially with your patient assistance) to correct my inadequate understandings of macroeconomics and historical context.

Explain population growth since the Neolithic without economic output being a factor

[pchang]

Sex feels really, really good!

[Fake Boris]

What GMOs do for sure:

- encourage overuse of herbicides that contaminate the food chain
- cross pollinate, enabling unwanted mutations and forcing themselves on farmers that don't want them

What they might do

- cancer and other diseases

The situation right now is that there's not enough research being conducted, and that Monsanto is actively preventing research. Monsanto has a huge track record of marketing unsafe products and then doing everything to deny evidence

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Explain population growth since the Neolithic without economic output being a factor

Explain the population growth trends in Germany, the UK, France, etc. using a Malthusian model.

[Fake Boris]

Over the long term, the most important factor is the economy.

On the short term, accidents like war and famine happen. In the end, population always tends to stabilize according to available resources. Post industrial society has reached a pretty good level of stability wrt to population, however food consumption is still rising (for reasons I have already stated).

[Lorizael]

What GMOs do for sure:

- encourage overuse of herbicides that contaminate the food chain

How exactly does golden rice encourage overuse of herbicides?

[Fake Boris]

How exactly does golden rice encourage overuse of herbicides?

[Lorizael]

Is that the smiley that means, "It should be clear that when I overgeneralize I really mean one specific thing but that doesn't stop me from opposing the general thing anyway because I'm bad at logic"?

[Fake Boris]

Thank God you exist!

Without you, I could never have figured that increased herbicide use doesn't apply to non-herbicide resistant GMOs.

[N35t0r]

I still don't understand what you're trying to say,

Um, that a decrease in productivity will very probably not reduce resource consumption?

or what post of mine you were responding to. Make yourself clear and we can discuss.

Oh, right, sorry. I assumed that you'd understand that I was responding to the post right above mine, in which you said:

If you try to show that increases in productivity reduce resource consumption as a whole, you will fail.

Which is either simplistically wrong (in most cases, increases in productivity have meant that less resources were needed to make the same amount of products, which is a reduction) or a useless statement (with current population growth, the only way to reduce total resource consumption would mean a drastic reduction in living standards and/or death of a large portion of the global population.

Right now you keep jumping in, seemingly responding to claims I don't feel I made.

All your claims lately have been on the relative mental development of other posters. One imagines it's because you don't agree with what they say, but if you don't feel people get your points, try explaining them rather than insulting.

[pchang]

What you fail to realize is that "drastic reduction in living standards" is exactly what he wants to happen (just for everyone else that is).

Failing that, he will settle for "death of a large portion of the global population". Again, just for everyone else.

[Fake Boris]

Which is either simplistically wrong (in most cases, increases in productivity have meant that less resources were needed to make the same amount of products, which is a reduction) or a useless statement (with current population growth, the only way to reduce total resource consumption would mean a drastic reduction in living standards and/or death of a large portion of the global population.

No, increases in productivity, in the current property system of capital accumulation, have three major effects:

1) increase population (up to the next stable level)
2) increase resource consumption per capita
3) increase externalities, which are resources consumed at an unfair price