The Impossibility of Growth

[Fake Boris]

So it's your mistake not mine. Right?

You were still wrong over the whole issue - this specific doesn't touch my point. You can read again if you're not sure.

I understand your ego is being roughed, just take it easy. In time you'll come to understand that living organisms populations correlate with available resources.

[Sava]

Why do people bother saying dumb **** and then not backing it up with any evidence at all? Either support your claims with some evidence or shut the **** up.

Exactly.

But that's how you can tell the intelligent people from the crackpots.

[Fake Boris]

It's not my job to write your term paper.

Actually, I googled pictograms showing a world map and the location of Apple suppliers. It took me less than 5 minutes.

Not surprisingly, Apple's factories in China are supplied from all across the world. The transportation of raw materials and finished goods eats up fuel, which is turned into waste into the atmosphere.

I know you're trolling me, I still like you.

[Sava]

Actually, I googled pictograms showing a world map and the location of Apple suppliers. It took me less than 5 minutes.

Not surprisingly, Apple's factories in China are supplied from all across the world. The transportation of raw materials and finished goods eats up fuel, which is turned into waste into the atmosphere.

If the evidence is so easily available, you should be able to cite numerous sources.

The only reason you don't (that I can fathom), is that you're full of crap.

I know you're trolling me, I still like you.

I respect people that can have passionate disagreements about bull**** without it getting personal.

[Geronimo]

Explain.

I asserted this because it appears to be true and because I am not interested in speculating on possible models for pre-industrial population growth patterns as I do not see them ever being applicable to the civilized future. Not even an imagined zero or near zero growth future scenario would really fit to the neolithic model in anything but the most trivial sense, unless the scenario involves an ignorant humanity of hunter gatherers.

It's your job to fit a model of population growth from neolithic to the present times to future trends and so far you haven't delivered.

[Dinner]

On a different note if I ever do get a couple of acres (especially with a stream on the edge of the property) I am so going to plant a food forest. It's like gardening for lazy people.

http://www.beaconfoodforest.org/

[Geronimo]

I will answer your post as honestly as I can if you do the following first:

What do you think explains population growth that is not related to food surpluses?

Unfortunately for humanities efforts to plan for the future, I do not think a simple accurate model of human population growth can be identified with any confidence. Human population growth has proved to be frustratingly difficult to model for decades. That means we need to keep a very close eye on population growth trends and try to plan for multiple scenarios and hope the most disastrous ones do not materialize.

Accurate models of human population growth may be possible at some point if humanity culturally homogenizes and stagnates.

[Felch]

On a different note if I ever do get a couple of acres (especially with a stream on the edge of the property) I am so going to plant a food forest. It's like gardening for lazy people.

http://www.beaconfoodforest.org/

Not an answer for feeding the whole world, but a damn better use of land than a giant lawn or some other silly horse****.

[Fake Boris]

I asserted this because it appears to be true and because I am not interested in speculating on possible models for pre-industrial population growth patterns as I do not see them ever being applicable to the civilized future. Not even an imagined zero or near zero growth future scenario would really fit to the neolithic model in anything but the most trivial sense, unless the scenario involves an ignorant humanity of hunter gatherers.

It's your job to fit a model of population growth from neolithic to the present times to future trends and so far you haven't delivered.

There are three kinds of society: agrarian, industrial, and postindustrial.

All three have in common that their population grows in relation to available resources.

In agrarian societies, life is harsh and population grows slowly as more land is claimed. (Estimated world population 1 A.D. is 200-500 million; 1800 A.D., 1 billion). Birth and death rates are high.

Industrial societies grow the fastest, as they approach postindustrial level. Birth rates remain fairly high, while death rates diminish rapidly. Immigration is attracted from agrarian societies.

Postindustrial societies grow slowly, but they still grow. Death rates and birth rates are low. Immigration tends to be high, since people from agrarian and industrial societies are attracted to the higher standards of living.

In agrarian societies, food consumption grows with population.
In industrial societies, food consumption grows both from population increases and economic growth (people eat more complex food products).
In postindustrial society, food consumption grows slowly but it's already very high. There is tremendous waste (close to 50%).

Human population grew very rapidly in the last 200 years (1 billion in 1800, 7 billion in 2000) as most societies went from agrarian to industrial. This is the major factor explaining the growth in food needs since the industrial revolution.

My model is the following: food surpluses explain the transition from agrarian to industrial, and from industrial to postindustrial. Food consumption increases both from population and consumption per capita.

The 21s century will be the century where the evolution from industrial to postindustrial that we have seen in the first world becomes generalized. This will exact a significant toll on the planet's resources, a toll she is unlikely to satisfy sustainably for very long.

Postindustrial societies are mostly stable. However there is still a long way to go before every society reaches this level, which means that food consumption is bound to rise rapidly in the next century.

Eventually, postindustrial humanity will stabilize at a certain level. It's not clear what this level will be, but given current trends, 10 billion postindustrial consumers is most likely not sustainable. This level will be "neo-agrarian".

If we want the transition to "neo-agrarian" stability to be made succesfully, we need to devise an economic system that does not rest on growth, but on stability. In other words, we'll need to organize society in such a way that 0.1 % growth works for most.

[N35t0r]

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

Throwing things into the river is unfair? You're not answering my question.

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

I never said you did. The only other way to increase population is to lower death rates. So if you're against increases in productivity because they increase populations, and increases in productivity don't increase birth rates, then you're in favour of increasing death rates

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.

Obviously. Which is why you only took half of what I said and assumed that was my argument.

[Fake Boris]

I never said you did. The only other way to increase population is to lower death rates. So if you're against increases in productivity because they increase populations, and increases in productivity don't increase birth rates, then you're in favour of increasing death rates

1) I don't oppose increases in productivity. I oppose increases in productivity that do not go towards sustaining life and happiness.

2) Read my long post above wrt to birth rates.

3) You don't have to increase death rates. You can wait until people die peacefully.

[N35t0r]

1) I don't oppose increases in productivity. I oppose increases in productivity that do not go towards sustaining life and happiness.

And who gets to define what 'sustaining life' includes and what 'happiness' entails? You? Colour me skeptical.

2) Read my long post above wrt to birth rates.

Long and irrelevant, especially when you jump to your own solution to be the only valid outcome.

3) You don't have to increase death rates. You can wait until people die peacefully.

So you don't increase death rates. Or decrease birth rates. But somehow we must keep up with the growing population (which will continue to grow exponentially unless birth rates go down) without increasing productivity?

[Fake Boris]

Go ahead Einstein, state your model.

[Geronimo]

OB, you and I may not be so far apart in our values and priorities with respect to civilization and perhaps not even in our very general strategies for pursuing those values. But the original post you made probably will undermine all of that.

First, it contains glaringly obvious logical errors that are a terrible distraction from any call to action or awareness of danger.

Second, it makes no specific recommendations for addressing anything. It's useless.

Finally throughout this thread you have appeared to advocate tactics in response to environmental danger, which, if implemented would likely perversely increase the rate and severity of environmental damage.

[N35t0r]