The Impossibility of Growth

[Fake Boris]

It's a very simple calculation. It gives a pretty good idea of the problem, i.e. it's massive.

You don't even have to cover close to the entire planet to ruin it. Just a tiny portion of this thrash can permanently damage ecosystems.

The oceanic garbage patches are the tip of the iceberg, and we're having a ball on the Titanic.

[Elok]

There are currently seven billion people--or a little more--and very few of them generate anywhere near as much as trash as Americans do, because most of them are poor and do not consume as Americans do. I do not see why the same truth would not apply with another three. At some point, we will likely reach a hard limit, but that's different from impending doom.

[Elok]

Does anybody have an animated image of Hudson from Aliens freaking out? gameoverman.jpeg, something like that?

[Fake Boris]

There are currently seven billion people--or a little more--and very few of them generate anywhere near as much as trash as Americans do, because most of them are poor and do not consume as Americans do. I do not see why the same truth would not apply with another three. At some point, we will likely reach a hard limit, but that's different from impending doom.

We're close to the limit as things are now.

World economic growth is at 3%. You may not realize it, but 3% compounds very quickly.

[Elok]

Well, if growth really terrifies you that much, we could have some massive, devastating wars instead, or just tell the poor to die in a gutter. Then you could mope about those instead. Might make a nice change of pace.

[Fake Boris]

We could also try ecological reforms.

[Fake Boris]

http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/

[Aeson]

Here is my astonishing proposal to combat malnutrition: PROPER DISTRIBUTION

A) just about everyone would like to see better distribution, but it doesn't happen.

B) if you move us from 1kg/sq m production to 1kg/10sq m production you can distribute the output however you want, we're still going to be working an awful lot more land just to avoid people we care about starving. Let alone what will happen to the people we don't care about.

*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

Extensive agricultural land (eg. marginal grasslands) have high rates of erosion. Marginal grasslands tend to stay marginal grasslands or turn to desert. This is what quickly happens when tropical forests are cut to open up grazing land for instance. I see it happening all around me sadly. We need to replant the forests to help regulate watershed, pull nutrients from deeper in the ground to replenish top-soil, and limit erosion. But to do that requires giving people an alternative that actually works ... intensive farming with modern technology. Because no one is going to just sit and watch their family starve if they can chop down a few trees and eat beef and grains instead.

The second one is untrue if you look at it from a ratio of volume of herbicides/pesticides to volume of output. They do spray wheat with herbicides to reduce competition for already scares nutrients and moisture. Livestock have their own chemical issues in regards to medicine to prevent diseases. (Not a big factor, but along the same lines as the health impact of herbicides.)

Reducing the impetus to GMO research is a negative. There is a huge amount of potential within the field.

The fourth is not true. Expansive agriculture requires disrupting much more area for any given level of output. Also, since expansive agriculture tends to be in marginal areas and promotes the creation and perpetuation of marginal areas, it means the more limited resources (nutrients, water) consumed by herd animals or grain crops are more likely to crowd out wildlife.

[Geronimo]

It's a very simple calculation. It gives a pretty good idea of the problem, i.e. it's massive.

You don't even have to cover close to the entire planet to ruin it. Just a tiny portion of this thrash can permanently damage ecosystems.

The oceanic garbage patches are the tip of the iceberg, and we're having a ball on the Titanic.

Since the vast majority (by weight and volume) of trash in the US is still not exported we can get a pretty good model of a world in which everyone produced as much trash as Americans by looking at the US. There are so many filled-to-capacity landfills that many are being "reclaimed" and communities are being built over these landfills. It's distasteful but hardly apocalyptic.

[Elok]

http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-g...eed-sums-well/

Started reading it, stopped at the crack-brained nonsense about Egypt. Economic growth =/= endless accumulation of increasing amounts of physical matter. Modern wealth is increasingly immaterial--energy and information.

[Aeson]

We're close to the limit as things are now.

World economic growth is at 3%. You may not realize it, but 3% compounds very quickly.

Recycling and biodegradeable wastes need to be factored in. Maybe you should graph methane capture since the neolithic. You can look at the hockey stick and miss the point entirely and feel great about how in the future we'll be able to power a billion trillion % of our energy needs just with methane!

Specifically to agriculture, most of the waste is biodegradable. They can actually be used to offset petroleum inputs, but it requires more intensive agriculture, not more extensive. Extensive agriculture makes collecting agricultural wastes essentially impossible.

[Aeson]

It would take a concerted effort to achieve that level of fatness.

If we graph out the fatness of Americans since the neolithic we will see that we will all weigh several tons only a few centuries into the future.

[pchang]

At even 1% compound growth since the Neolithic age, the earth would already have collapsed into a brown dwarf because of humanity.

[Geronimo]

I will say that I have never believed that growth is essential for any civilization. I only believe it is necessary for this one. There is a great deal of scarcity in the world and growth helps reduce this. Reduced scarcity seems to keep international relations less tense and greatly reduce the odds of apocalyptic global warfare. I only want civilization to grow until various landmarks are achieved that would obviate much of the need for growth such as if some version, weak or strong of "technological singularity" turns out to be achievable and is successfully harnessed for the general welfare or if human population begins to shrink or a "post human" economy results in which human labor of any sort becomes a superfluous component of the economy such that capitalism ceases to be the fastest route to innovation.

Perhaps some day zero growth would make the world a better place. If we try to enact it in any manner right now, however, it will simply transfer power and wealth to the cheaters and probably increase ecological damage in process. Certainly zero growth while population increases is asking for a tragic and devastating uncontrolled collapse. A cure as bad or worse than the disease.

Furthermore, depending on the technologies that one day prove possible, it is hypothetically possible for growth to continue to be attractive and achievable indefinitely. Especially if physics turns out to have loopholes allowing access to truly unlimited energy.

[Fake Boris]

Since the vast majority (by weight and volume) of trash in the US is still not exported we can get a pretty good model of a world in which everyone produced as much trash as Americans by looking at the US. There are so many filled-to-capacity landfills that many are being "reclaimed" and communities are being built over these landfills. It's distasteful but hardly apocalyptic.

The US has not been industrialized for a long time.

Compound.