The Impossibility of Growth

[AAAAAAAAH!]

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

Yes, we're not knee-deep in our own garbage.

[Sava]

Do you have any evidence

[Fake Boris]

protip: recycling is growing exponentially too.

Not even close to covering increasing garbage.

[Fake Boris]

Yes, we're not knee-deep in our own garbage.

It's getting close to that.

[Sava]

It's getting close to that.

Sounds like you need to move.

[Fake Boris]

It's pretty hilarious that you can't draw a pattern of population growth since the Neolithic, but you can draw a pattern of capitalist economic growth with data that starts from 1850.

[Sava]

It's pretty hilarious that you can't draw a pattern of population growth since the Neolithic, but you can draw a pattern of capitalist economic growth with data that starts from 1850.

Me?

[Fake Boris]

no

[Fake Boris]

In the end the OP is entirely correct. Telling people resources are not infinite is like telling a child Santa Claus doesn't exist. It really hurts.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Quebec is nothing but garbage...

[AAAAAAAAH!]

In the end the OP is entirely correct. Telling people resources are not infinite is like telling a child Santa Claus doesn't exist. It really hurts.

But nobody said resources are infinite... it's like you don't understand the concept of using existing resources more efficiently.

[Fake Boris]

I just made a very simple calculation just for fun.

Let's say:

1) Global population is 10 billion
2) Everyone generates as much thrash as the average American
3) Garbage is grossly compacted to weight like water (but not otherwise processed)

It takes 65 years to cover the entire planet's land area with 1 meter of thrash.

The cubic meter example in the OP does give a strong idea of the problem at hand.
Several centuries of growth (or even millennia) is a LUDICROUS idea.

Statements of the bleeding obvious, the outcomes of basic arithmetic, are treated as exotic and unpardonable distractions, while the impossible proposition by which we live is regarded as so sane and normal and unremarkable that it isn’t worthy of mention. That’s how you measure the depth of this problem: by our inability even to discuss it.

[Fake Boris]

But nobody said resources are infinite... it's like you don't understand the concept of using existing resources more efficiently.

And you were the one to ridicule the cubic meter example.

It's like you don't understand that objects turn into thrash as they are consumed or made obsolete.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I just made a very simple calculation just for fun.

Let's say:

1) Global population is 10 billion
2) Everyone generates as much thrash as the average American
3) Garbage is grossly compacted to weight like water (but not otherwise processed)

It takes 65 years to cover the entire planet's land area with 1 meter of thrash.

The cubic meter example in the OP does give a strong idea of the problem at hand.
Several centuries of growth (or even millennia) is a LUDICROUS idea.

Statements of the bleeding obvious, the outcomes of basic arithmetic, are treated as exotic and unpardonable distractions, while the impossible proposition by which we live is regarded as so sane and normal and unremarkable that it isn’t worthy of mention. That’s how you measure the depth of this problem: by our inability even to discuss it.

I like how you didn't show your actual calculations so they can be criticized... and how you apparently assumed that none of the trash is biodegradable. And how you assume there's a 1-1 ratio between economic activity and trash output... just because.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

And you were the one to ridicule the cubic meter example.

It's like you don't understand that objects turn into thrash as they are consumed or made obsolete.

It's like you think trash just sits around for eternity and can never be used again.