The Impossibility of Growth

[Aeson]

Again, this is pointless. Even if 90% of everything we made were recycled, at 3% growth, we would have exhausted the first kilometer of the planet's surface in 500 years.

Do you really think that manufacturing objects from solar energy is even close to 90% efficiency?

Plant a seed that costs nothing on land that isn't used. 20-50 years later you have thousands of dollars (maybe more by then) of rosewood. Yes ... sunlight can be very efficient at generating wealth. The food we eat, much of the clothing we wear, much of the homes we live in ... the raw materials are a result of processes powered by sunlight.

Give science some time to play with GMO and we can surely do much more. Biodegradeable plastics which are consumed by special strains of bacteria that output fuel from the process ... trees that grow strawberries the size of your fist ... bacon slabs. These are the sorts of things GMO science offers us in the future. Because sunlight can be used very efficiently by biological processes, and because sunlight is so profuse, this offers a huge potential for economic growth in the future.

No wonder you hate GMO so much, it destroys your chicken little act ...

Yes, if you assume that the pesticides don't go anywhere. Sure, if you assume that cross-pollination doesn't disrupt ecosystems. I wonder what would happen faster: depletion of resources, or you understanding this?

You're all mixed up here. You're attacking GMOs because of your hatred of pesticides, but GMOs are the most likely way we have to reduce pesticide use in the future.

As for cross-pollination disrupting ecosystems ... there's no reason to think a GMO cross pollinating will disrupt an ecosystem that way any more than a new hybrid or a non-indigenous species. Surely it won't disrupt ecosystems as much as chopping down what's left of the world's forests to open up grazing so that dumb philosophers can live out their fantasies of living like nomads on marginal grasslands while much of the world's population starves. Extensive agriculture

Decay happens quite fast. This is good as long as there are few organic resources to decay. But according to you:

- some magical technology will make all objects organic

It's not magic, it's called GMO and market forces. As space becomes more of a premium, costs involved with long decay materials will push people towards quick decay alternatives. This is of course if long decay materials don't find their own short decay processes. (Already some plastics have found some short decay processes.)

- We'll have the space to dispose of these so that they can be recycled.

It still doesn't get you out of the problem.

Yes, it gets us out of the problem. The closer we get to the problem the more valuable the remaining space becomes, and so the more we can warrant spending to save that space. As science progresses we have more and more tools to deal with these issues.

Assuming 3% growth and a very generous recycling rate of 90%, we would be hard capped at a few centuries.

You keep assuming that none of the growth is immaterial and that there are no other ways to decay items except by recycling.

The truth of the matter is if we really wanted to, we could switch over to easily decayed items in a great many cases already. (Perhaps all cases.) The only reason we don't is because of cost. It's still cheaper to buy land to put trash on than to switch.

If that changes, so will what people buy.

Services economies are those that use up the most resources.

You're confusing what someone does with wealth with what output a process that creates the wealth does. As material resources become more scarce their price increases. This means that immaterial value can increase without necessarily causing increased use of material resources even down the line.

You're also confusing poverty with something good. The reason we use more resources isn't because we're service economy ... it's because we're rich. Which incidentally is because the services (which are often immaterial in and of themselves) are valuable.

[Sava]

Actually yes I have a pretty good idea of what can be done. I was just trying to let you do research on your own.

The most important step is a monetary reform that doesn't pose growth as a necessity.

Growth is the evil cult of the 20th century.

MY RESEARHC?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAH
I CANT EVEN TYPE SMILIES NOW
HAHAHAHAHA

[Aeson]

Do you understand biology?

You aren't even making any sense. Economics are applicable to the statement you quoted. Biology is not.

[Aeson]

Oncle just wants to pretend living in huts and herding animals around on a treeless planet is the ultimate human existence ... while doing nothing of the sort himself.

[Sava]

Oncle just wants to pretend living in huts and herding animals around on a treeless planet is the ultimate human existence ... while doing nothing of the sort himself.

Don't forget... he's "educating" us.

That's his contribution to the struggle.

[Aeson]

I guess the socialism part is fitting too, since his plan would be to kill hundreds of millions of people via starvation. Take that Mao and Stalin ... lightweights

[The Mad Monk]

Air manure instead of soil manure

Progress

No, air manure AND soil manure AND water manure.

The stuff powders and gets airborne, and washes into watersheds. E. Coli for everybody!

[Sava]

E. Coli for everybody!

obligatory:

[AAAAAAAAH!]

In the past 30 years, a new form of political thinking has emerged which is called ecosocialism. You can look it up, there's a lot of literature going around.

Oh God :

[Fake Boris]

Aeson probably thinks we'll make organic cars that are grown from fields.

Then when we lack space to recycle them, we'll make organic steel structures to pile up layers of composting facilities.

Talk about a practical, realistic scenario.

[Fake Boris]

Also, the only way to reduce pesticide use is GMOs.

Because, well, organic farming doesn't exist.

[Fake Boris]

And finally, better distribution "won't happen".

Therefore I'm convinced that political action shouldn't be done.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

LALALALA I'M AN ECOSOCIALIST WHO THINK 3% GDP GROWTH AUTOMATICALLY MEANS 3% MORE TRASH THAN LAST YEAR!!!!!

[Fake Boris]

As resources deplete, their price will increase.

Therefore, there will be more "wealth", as reflected in their price.

This is majestic

[AAAAAAAAH!]

As resources deplete, their price will increase.

Therefore, there will be more "wealth", as reflected in their price.

This is majestic

IF ONLY THERE WERE A WAY TO ADJUST INCOME FIGURES FOR CHANGING PRICES!