The Impossibility of Growth

[Dinner]

We're already producing much more food than is needed.

Malnutrition is purely artificial.

I said in the future where there will be ever less farmland (due to urbanization and desertification, etc...) yet ever more people. Yes, we will have to increase output per acre. That's just a fact. Especially since food prices keep going up world wide.

[N35t0r]

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.

+1

[Fake Boris]

I haven't had the time to discuss concrete tactics for the precise reason that most posters have spent an awful lot of time nitpicking over specifics that took me an awful lot of time to address. These specifics do very little to refute the overall model.

So realistically, what's the solution to the ecological ceiling?

1) Monetary reform
2) Putting a fair cost to externalities
3) Real democracy (non-representative)

Each of these is a separate thread already...

[Fake Boris]

I said in the future where there will be ever less farmland (due to urbanization and desertification, etc...) yet ever more people. Yes, we will have to increase output per acre. That's just a fact. Especially since food prices keep going up world wide.

I really disagree with this. The most promising field of development is ecological extensive agriculture combined with birth control.

If resource collection is done respectfully, then nearly 100% of the planet's surface can be used for harvesting.

Here's a biological example. The human body lives in harmony with billions of bacteria. Only a tiny fraction of them are actually harmful.

Infectious bacteria that exhaust the human body until it dies are simply "stupid" unadapted bacteria. The body dies, so does the food source and the bacteria colony.

Right now human beings are behaving like an infectious disease towards the planet. The general direction to take is to model ourselves according to the "harmonious" micro-organisms. There are several examples of this kind of relation between species across ecosystems.

[Geronimo]

I haven't had the time to discuss concrete tactics for the precise reason that most posters have spent an awful lot of time nitpicking over specifics that took me an awful lot of time to address. These specifics do very little to refute the overall model.

The overall model as described in the OP has been refuted in all its details to such a degree as to leave nothing of value.

So realistically, what's the solution to the ecological ceiling?

1) Monetary reform
2) Putting a fair cost to externalities
3) Real democracy (non-representative)

Each of these is a separate thread already...

Putting a fair cost to externalities would probably be good enough. Start with a conservative (low) estimate of such costs to facilitate global adoption of the scheme (local adoption typically just shifts activities geographically and increases environmental costs as a result) and sustainability would be greatly facilitated. Tall order though. Somehow you'd need nearly universal adoption and you'd need to isolate areas that refuse to participate from the bulk of the global economy.

I haven't heard how monetary reform would facilitate sustainability and while I think democracy is essential to avoid the authoritarian dystopias that result from all other forms of government (Live free or die!), I also suspect it is one of the least useful for environmental sustainability.

[Fake Boris]

The overall model as described in the OP has been refuted in all its details to such a degree as to leave nothing of value.

I have repeatedly made the point that waste is part of a product's dimensions.

The only "refutation" is that waste can be recycled. Well, is it?

Answer: no. Garbage grows exponentially. Look at any garbage generation graph. Garbage grows much faster than recycling.

Why? Because there isn't a proper cost for externalities.

Why isn't there a proper cost to externalities?

Because incentives gravitate around infinite capital accumulation and short term thinking.

[Sava]

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]

I have repeatedly made the point that waste is part of a product's dimensions.

The only "refutation" is that waste can be recycled. Well, is it?

Answer: no. Garbage grows exponentially. Look at any garbage generation graph. Garbage grows much faster than recycling.

Why? Because there isn't a proper cost for externalities.

Why isn't there a proper cost to externalities?

Because incentives gravitate around infinite capital accumulation and short term thinking.

protip: recycling is growing exponentially too.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

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.

You haven't provided much evidence that it can't last for "very long".

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I have repeatedly made the point that waste is part of a product's dimensions.

The only "refutation" is that waste can be recycled. Well, is it?

Answer: no. Garbage grows exponentially. Look at any garbage generation graph. Garbage grows much faster than recycling.

Why? Because there isn't a proper cost for externalities.

Why isn't there a proper cost to externalities?

Because incentives gravitate around infinite capital accumulation and short term thinking.

What do you consider a proper cost to externalities? What's the "proper cost" per ton of trash sent to landfills? I'd like to see some math.

[Geronimo]

What do you consider a proper cost to externalities? What's the "proper cost" per ton of trash sent to landfills? I'd like to see some math.

Aye, there's the rub. I actually agree with OB that setting a cost to externalities is crucial for combining capitalism with optimal sustainability but no question setting the cost for the externalities with any accuracy would be very very difficult.

I suppose it may be necessary to approach it as with consumer product safety and require 3rd party environmental impact study of some sort for just about everything, every good and service. This would not be cheap. However, externalities are real costs. If a scheme reduced them enough overall it could pay for itself globally with savings to spare. The scheme will fail if not global, however as non participating businesses or economies would enjoy a huge competitive advantage over those forced to participate.

[pchang]

The answer is whatever it takes to force people to follow the OB Way of Life (like that democratic 20 year thing)

[Dinner]

This thread is like seeing an accident on the freeway. You know it is horrible but you just can't look away.

[Geronimo]

This thread is like seeing an accident on the freeway. You know it is horrible but you just can't look away.

Obviously you aren't alone in slowing down and stealing a few furtive glances and open stares. OB at times seemed like a eco-nut version of Serb. As with any good troll I've never been convinced that he's truly trolling no matter how outrageous and implausible his posts became.

[Fake Boris]

What do you consider a proper cost to externalities? What's the "proper cost" per ton of trash sent to landfills? I'd like to see some math.

Do you have any evidence that the current price is acceptable?