The Impossibility of Growth

[N35t0r]

Let's hear him say that then.

[Fake Boris]

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.

Living standards as you claim should not be measured by your ability to consume resources. As such, no, I don't advocate a reduction in living standards.

[N35t0r]

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)

Only in the sense that all those people that are already there don't die

2) increase resource consumption per capita

Not necessarily. Also, It doesn't really bother me if 'increase in resource consumption per capita' means that less people die from starvation and sleep on the streets.

3) increase externalities, which are resources consumed at an unfair price

1)What?
2)Please define an objective value for unfair.




Increases in productivity don't cause people to have more children (in fact, the opposite). The only way they increase populations is by reducing death rates. If you seriously believe this (reduction of death rates) is a bad thing than I'm done talking with you.

[pchang]

Living standards as you claim should not be measured by your ability to consume resources. As such, no, I don't advocate a reduction in living standards.

It's not a reduction in living standards when it only eliminates things we shouldn't be doing anyway (according to the beliefs of OB). This probably explains why OB is so close to OBL.

[Lorizael]

Thank God you exist!

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

You said that was one of the things GMOs did for sure. If you want to make an argument against specific types of GMOs, go right ahead. If you want to make an argument against GMOs as a whole, you need to be more careful with your claims. Lumping together an entire class of vaguely related things is bound to cause problems. See the earlier discussion begun by Elok.

Re: over-simplistic fears, it occurred to me one day when I was subbing a science class that the question "are GMOs safe?" is a lot like the question "are cars safe?" If you mean "are cars in general a safe technology," or "can cars be used safely," the answer is yes. But it remains entirely possible for individual cars, or individual GMOs, to be unsafe, unwise or poorly planned. Radical scaremongering seems likely to decrease the odds of sensible regulation, thus making all the scaremongers' own fears come true.

[N35t0r]

Living standards as you claim should not be measured by your ability to consume resources.

No, they are measured on how 'comfortably' you live.

Such as being able to eat and have a roof over your head.

[Fake Boris]

Only in the sense that all those people that are already there don't die

???

Not necessarily. Also, It doesn't really bother me if 'increase in resource consumption per capita' means that less people die from starvation and sleep on the streets.

It means a little bit more than this. This is the whole issue of postindustrial society, that increases in consumption do not go towards the sustaining of life, but towards the satisfaction of greedy appetites.

If most economic development went to feeding the poor and caring for the ill, then it would be pretty awesome.

1)What?
2)Please define an objective value for unfair.

You build a factory and you throw the waste into the river. You disposed of garbage at an unfair price.

Increases in productivity don't cause people to have more children (in fact, the opposite). The only way they increase populations is by reducing death rates. If you seriously believe this (reduction of death rates) is a bad thing than I'm done talking with you.

I never said that the birth rate is the only way to increase population.

It is Felch who came with this strawman. He believed he could refute my claim that food surpluses generate population growth, by linking low food security with high birth rates.

It's his mistake, not mine.

You obviously haven't been following the discussion with him. I thoroughly detailed my point with him over the last two pages of this thread.

[Fake Boris]

You said that was one of the things GMOs did for sure. If you want to make an argument against specific types of GMOs, go right ahead. If you want to make an argument against GMOs as a whole, you need to be more careful with your claims. Lumping together an entire class of vaguely related things is bound to cause problems. See the earlier discussion begun by Elok.

Well sounds like you did a great job of ignoring the other dangers (like cross-contamination).

[Lorizael]

Well sounds like you did a great job of ignoring the other dangers (like cross-contamination).

Cross-pollination happens (and is a risk) with all forms of agriculture. At least with GMOs, it's possible to engineer plants so that it can't happen. (Note: I'm not saying that prevention of cross-pollination has been done well so far, only that if you try to prevent it, you might succeed, whereas if you don't try, you won't succeed.)

Yes, GMOS might cause cancers and other diseases. So might... well... everything. That's a reason to study, not to ban. Sure, Monsanto has some pretty despicable tactics. That's a reason to sanction Monsanto, not to ban GMOs.

[Fake Boris]

Remember folks this is the starting point of the whole discussion:

Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham(1).

Go on, take a guess. Ten times the size of the pyramids? All the sand in the Sahara? The Atlantic ocean? The volume of the planet? A little more? It’s 2.5 billion billion solar systems(2). It does not take you long, pondering this outcome, to reach the paradoxical position that salvation lies in collapse.

1) First response: This must be false since there has been growth

obvious refutation: actually, there hasn't been much growth since 3,000 BCE. Almost all growth occurred from the 1850s. The economic trend since the industrial revolution is not sustainable for thousands of years.

2) Second response: Production is more efficient resource-wise therefore the cubic meter example doesn't apply. The value of goods is not related to dimensions.

refutation A: more production means more people
refutation B: more production increases resource consumption per capita
refutation C: waste is part of a product's real dimension

Most of the thread has been spent denying those last three points: A, B, C.

Which are bleeding obvious.

[Geronimo]

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

There is no possible explanation of population growth since Neolithic times with or without economic output which would provide any meaningful insight into the OP.

[Fake Boris]

Compound economic growth since 3,000 BCE is more likely something like 0.09-0.1 %.

3% + growth is an invention of the industrial revolution and can't last for very long.

[Fake Boris]

There is no possible explanation of population growth since Neolithic times with or without economic output which would provide any meaningful insight into the OP.

Explain.

[pchang]

No. The first response is that the OP is ludicrous. While compounding interest might be great money in bank accounts, the same concept cannot be applied to physical things. Any attempt to do so is ingenuous and ludicrous.

[Dinner]

The basic fact is in order to feed everyone we're going to need to increase agricultural output per acre as there are very few virgin lands left to open up for agriculture. His low density suggestion does exactly the opposite of this, consuming what little open space is left for low density agriculture. That's bad for people, that's bad for wild life, and it's just plan dumb.

Look, I like the idea of a food forest but the fact is you're not going to be able to feed civilization using that sort of stuff. Yes, it is interesting, yes, it hardly uses any labor but, no, it's not economically efficient. It's great for someone in the ex-urbs with a couple acres who wants to have a hobby but no one is going to be making a living off of that sort of agriculture and instead they're vanity projects for people who make their living outside of agriculture.