The Impossibility of Growth

[Fake Boris]

The turning point is already reached and fusion power isn't even close.

Then from the point you achieve successful fusion on the planet - it's probably just a matter of years before you're mining Jupiter.

[Fake Boris]

Given that recycling is currently only nudged by a smattering of subsidy, weak mandates and weak and fickle economics I think it is ludicrous to look to the current state of recycling as a guide to what will become technically feasible through innovation as we run out of space.

The problem doesn't exist because it will be solved.

[Geronimo]

The turning point is already reached and fusion power isn't even close.

Then from the point you achieve successful fusion on the planet - it's probably just a matter of years before you're mining Jupiter.

sure, how about less than 75 years later?

[N35t0r]

The turning point

prove it.

[Fake Boris]

Also bear in mind that by the time we have found a new planet production is much higher than it's now. Which means that the new planet is depleted in a few dozen years.

[Geronimo]

The problem doesn't exist because it will be solved.

close. I would rephrase it like this.

The problem might not lead us all to our doom because solutions are theoretically possible. It is premature to run around like chicken little and give further ammunition to critics of sustainability action by smugly asserting that the problem of achieving a further several decades of non catastrophic growth is unsolvable.

[Fake Boris]

prove it.

Rising costs of natural resources, global warming, deforestation, desertification, oceanic garbage patches. You name it you got it.

[Geronimo]

Also bear in mind that by the time we have found a new planet production is much higher than it's now. Which means that the new planet is depleted in a few dozen years.

...or recycled several times over.

[Fake Boris]

We're assuming a 90% recycling rate already

[Geronimo]

We're assuming a 90% recycling rate already

Is that the royal we? Is it yourself and the authors of those editorials we've been so busy ridiculing? I think it's retarded to assume that once recycling everything becomes economically viable (because of running up against imminent physical constraints) that the technology will hit a hard cap, especially one of 90% of waste generated, and that somehow no further innovation will be possible.

[Fake Boris]

100% would mean we're turning cadavers into goods and energy.

[The Mad Monk]

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

...

PEOPLE!!!!!!

[The Mad Monk]

Ahem.

[Elok]

It always goes back to material resources. Both currency and information are pointless if they can't be traded for material resources.

That's news to dentists, doctors, hairdressers, pilots, soldiers, sailors, accountants, actuaries, programmers, artists, mechanics, singers, lawyers, writers, prostitutes, firefighters, cops, psychologists, mathematicians . . . you know, the vast percentage of society who make a living providing largely intangible services? 90% of all non-manual-labor jobs? Including, y'know, yours? Did you just admit your profession is worthless, since it produces absolutely no material resources?

Also, whereTF is "3% growth" even coming from? Is that GDP?

[Sava]

Rising costs of natural resources, global warming, deforestation, desertification, oceanic garbage patches. You name it you got it.

Just once, can you provide proof for your BS claims?

It doesn't even have to be in response to something I said.