Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 31 Oct 2008, 17:46:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t's addressing precisely what you said. I said that not considering something is not the same as acting as if it's infinite, and you stated it was.
Except that you didn't address that. You keep saying that not considering something is not the same as believing something. I'm saying that when people don't even consider the finite nature of our world, they act as they would if they did believe in infinite resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f people believed that we had an infinite amount of oil, why would they pay more for it?
You're kidding, right? You pay more for it because the producers and retailers charge more for it, and you want it badly enough to pay that price. Isn't that what the market is all about? I didn't say infinite rates of production. Increasing production takes time and resources. If there is an infinite amount, it should be possible to do that, but it won't be instantaneous. People, generally, act as if there are infinite resources and that technology (some magical entity) will enable those resources to be harnessed, either by extracting more or substituting another resource, for ever. The behaviour of people, generally, is indistiguishable from a belief in the infinite. Why else would they vote for a party that promises a return to, or more, economic growth?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no proposed solution in any useful sense, just this statement.
The usefulness of the articles is in awaking realisation that economic growth can't continue for ever on a finite planet and that we may already be seeing the negative impacts of the pursuit of such an unrealistic ideal. Governments surely have a part to play. Politicians now are trying to reconstruct the global economy. If you don't like that, make sure that you don't vote for any politician that advocates acting in the economy, in any way.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'C')learly not, since it doesn't show overall consumption.
That is a total straw man. The article (what I was referring to) did not refer to overall consumption. It stated.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.
Which is not true.
Of course it's true and showing a chart that has to do with energy intensity doesn't go one millimetre to showing that it is not true. No straw man, just pointing out a poor chart.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')hat you then attached a "per unit GDP" to that claim does not show that resource consumption can remain constant with economic growth.
Of course it does. even If we hold energy consumption constant, we can still see economic growth. I'm not saying that we will, just that over the past few decades global GDP growth compared to energy growth has shown that we can
No it hasn't. Over the past few decades, we've used more energy, not the same. We've also used more resources. Look at the BP energy review, for an estimate of the increasing energy. Energy intensity has decreased but more energy has been used. I don't think you really believe that economic growth can continue indefinitely without increased resource consumption, so I don't really know why you harp on about the rare, and short, periods when the global economy might have managed to grow without using more resources (or, at least, energy). The New Scientist articles are right, in this regard: economic growth puts a strain on the planet's biosphere and is impossible indefinitely on a finite planet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')ny improvement is better than the alternative.No it isn't. If improvements don't lead to sustainability, they can only stretch out the time before we need to do something significant.Which is an improvement over having less time to do something significant.Maybe you misread the quote. I said more time before having to do something, not more time to do it. It also risks having less resources (both physical and financial) to do what's necessary.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e can't instantaneously become sustainable, it'll take time.I agree. But if the "improvements" are within an overall sustainability plan, they are likely to have no impact on our ability to become sustainable, since they are targeted at increasing GDP, increasing the consumption of resources, long term, instead of decreasing them. So we might struggle through to 2020, with 7.7 billion people, more of which will have higher standards of living, and still be no closer to sustainability, even if we're less energy intensive.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no need to wait for zero population growth before making other parts of society more sustainable.The problem is that "more sustainable" is the same as "unsustainable". There aren't really degrees of sustainable. We either are, or we aren't. I agree that we don't need to wait for zero population growth to behave in a sustainable way. Richard Heinberg's 5 axioms of sustainability are one way of determining if we're behaving sustainably, though I know you hate those axioms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'R')eference please. I've never seen stats that show that. Or are you referring to growth per unit of GDP again?I'm not referring to growth per unit GDP again since I never referred to it in the first place.My goodness, you are a picky person. My profound apologies, though I feel sure you know exactly what I was writing about. You kept claiming we could grow the economy without consuming more resources when what you were referring to was the growth in GDP per unit of energy, or per capita. You have never shown that GDP has grown without consuming more energy or more resources (except for very rare and brief periods).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hat is a logical fallacy. Limits to growth are not the same as assuming everyone believes in consuming resources infinitely.Hopefully, I've now buried your particular misunderstanding but, just in case ... I've never said that people believe in infinite resources (with the odd exception) and in our biosphere having an infinite ability to absorb our waste. What I've written is that people act in the same way they would if they did have such beliefs. This is in general, of course, there are those who are fully aware of limits to growth and try to do something about it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 's')illy statements about who should be responsible for sustainability, or how we can't have more growth w/o more resources, even though we clearly can through gains in efficiency, I will compare it to equally silly statements.You say it's silly but have never shown why. The articles are about the endless pursuit of growth, not some short spurt of growth. Efficiencies have limits, as you know, so even efficiencies will not mask limits to growth for ever. The articles are spot on, in this regard, not silly at all though I realise that you might think they are (I say "think" because I sense that you do acknowledge limits but perhaps enjoy arguing so much that you strive to find things to argue with).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 31 Oct 2008, 17:54:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'U')nreliable how specifically?
Check out Chris Martenson's Crash Course for how US stats on GDP and inflation have altered over the years to make the position seem better than it is. Apparently, the US had pretty good economic growth in the second quarter, this year. How come it didn't feel like it?

The UK has also altered the way it calculates GDP and inflation, over the years. A quality daily (The Telegraph) tries to track true inflation (as felt by Joe Average) and estimated it at almost 3 times the official rate.

The UK and the US are not officially in recession yet, but, for many people, it sure feels like it.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 05:08:01

TP despite not agreeing in total with your need for total independance, I think you've won the argument here!
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 10:23:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t's addressing precisely what you said. I said that not considering something is not the same as acting as if it's infinite, and you stated it was.
Except that you didn't address that. You keep saying that not considering something is not the same as believing something. I'm saying that when people don't even consider the finite nature of our world, they act as they would if they did believe in infinite resources.
Stating that someone having no position on something means they have a position on it is a logical contradiction. It makes no sense. And, for the sake of argument, assuming that you somehow could read minds or were omniscient and knew how everyone would act if they believed in infinite growth, you still haven't explained how you know what exactly infinite growth is. I have no clue how people would act assuming they believed we had infinite resources because I and everyone else I know lives in a world with finite resources and can't read everyone else's mind.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f people believed that we had an infinite amount of oil, why would they pay more for it?
You're kidding, right? You pay more for it because the producers and retailers charge more for it, and you want it badly enough to pay that price. Isn't that what the market is all about?
Producers and retailers can try to charger whatever they want for something. Saudi Arabia could ask for $10x10^12/bbl, but I doubt anyone would buy at that price. Keeping in mind of course this is in a finite world. How can producers charge whatever they want for an infinite amount of something regardless of demand in a world where there is an infinite amount of it if they can't do it successfully in our finite world?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') didn't say infinite rates of production. Increasing production takes time and resources. If there is an infinite amount, it should be possible to do that, but it won't be instantaneous. That seems reasonable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'P')eople, generally, act as if there are infinite resources and that technology (some magical entity) will enable those resources to be harnessed, either by extracting more or substituting another resource, for ever. The behavior of people, generally, is indistinguishable from a belief in the infinite. Why else would they vote for a party that promises a return to, or more, economic growth?Alright TonyPrep. How do you know what the behavior of people when they believe in an infinite world? How do you know what everyone is thinking?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no proposed solution in any useful sense, just this statement.The usefulness of the articles is in awaking realisation that economic growth can't continue for ever on a finite planet and that we may already be seeing the negative impacts of the pursuit of such an unrealistic ideal.Which is a truism if I ever heard one. According to that line of reasoning they could write an article on how we can't mine the moon for cheese, and it would also awaken realization that mining the moon for cheese is impossible. It's true, but I doubt it's useful in any way.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'G')overnments surely have a part to play. Politicians now are trying to reconstruct the global economy. If you don't like that, make sure that you don't vote for any politician that advocates acting in the economy, in any way.Of course they do. Everyone has a part to play. But stating that governments are responsible for economic re/construction in a world where everybody is responsible isn't correct. If they had specifically stated what role government, and everyone else, should take, because of whatever reasons, then I can see that as being useful, but stating that we need government to construct a system where we live within our means, another truism, is wrong in terms of government's responsibility and pretty damn far from useful in terms of the truism (living within our means).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'M')ore growth means using more resources.No it doesn't. Efficiency increases have shown that we can have more growth w/o using more resources. We simply do more with the same resource. Not to say we can do that indefinitely, since we clearly can't. But we still have decades of data showing on a worldwide scale that we can have more growth w/o using more resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'O')f course it's true and showing a chart that has to do with energy intensity doesn't go one millimetre to showing that it is not true. No straw man, just pointing out a poor chart.How is it poor? As someone who can read the minds of others surely you can construct better arguments that straw men and ad hominem statements. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')hat you then attached a "per unit GDP" to that claim does not show that resource consumption can remain constant with economic growth.Of course it does. even If we hold energy consumption constant, we can still see economic growth. I'm not saying that we will, just that over the past few decades global GDP growth compared to energy growth has shown that we canNo it hasn't. Over the past few decades, we've used more energy, not the same.Again, another straw man. I never said we did not use more energy, I only said that we can have more economic growth using the same amount of resources. Why? because we have used less energy and have seen proportionally greater GDP. If we had held resource consumption constant, we still could have seen GDP growth, albeit at a lesser rate, and for whatever reason we have decided to increase energy use too for more economic growth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')e've also used more resources. Look at the BP energy review, for an estimate of the increasing energy. Energy intensity has decreased but more energy has been used.Like I said, this isn't about whether we have use more resources. Clearly we have. What the article stated was that we could not increase growth w/o increasing energy consumption. This is wrong since we can increase growth while holding energy consumption constant, as has been illustrated in decades of info on energy intensity. We chose to use even more energy for greater growth, but that doesn't mean that we can't have economic growth w/o a growth in resource consumption.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') don't think you really believe that economic growth can continue indefinitely without increased resource consumption, so I don't really know why you harp on about the rare, and short, periods when the global economy might have managed to grow without using more resources (or, at least, energy).I harp on them because we have an editorial from a supposedly scientific group saying that what we have seen is impossible. No one here is saying we can do it indefinitely, all I'm saying is that we can do it, which the data has shown.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he New Scientist articles are right, in this regard: economic growth puts a strain on the planet's biosphere and is impossible indefinitely on a finite planet.The new scientist article is also wrong. It is possible to have growth w/o using more resources. Now, since infinite growth in a finite world is clearly impossible, and a truism, is it really that much to expect a supposedly scientific publication to do some research for posting other statements that are false?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')ny improvement is better than the alternative.No it isn't. If improvements don't lead to sustainability, they can only stretch out the time before we need to do something significant.Which is an improvement over having less time to do something significant.Maybe you misread the quote. I said more time before having to do something, not more time to do it.The only way would wouldn't have more time to become sustainable would be if we, for whatever reason, didn't use the extra time before having to do something to become more sustainable. Which, I suppose is a possibility, albeit an odd one.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t also risks having less resources (both physical and financial) to do what's necessary.It may, and if you wanted to talk about that I'm down. But that isn't what we were talking about.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e can't instantaneously become sustainable, it'll take time.I agree. But if the "improvements" are within an overall sustainability plan, they are likely to have no impact on our ability to become sustainable, since they are targeted at increasing GDP, increasing the consumption of resources, long term, instead of decreasing them. So we might struggle through to 2020, with 7.7 billion people, more of which will have higher standards of living, and still be no closer to sustainability, even if we're less energy intensive.Otoh, we could only have 7.7 million people, all of which have an incredibly high standard of living, and still be no closer to sustainability. Positing extremes isn't exactly productive in this case IMO. All we can say is that we're better off w/ steps that have allowed us to become more sustainable than we would be otherwise given where we are now. Using what we use now is more than a bit better than using 5TW more.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no need to wait for zero population growth before making other parts of society more sustainable.The problem is that "more sustainable" is the same as "unsustainable". There aren't really degrees of sustainable. We either are, or we aren't.You just used a metric, close in this case, wrt sustainability. How can we be close or far from sustainability if we either are or aren't sustainable? If there aren't degrees of sustainability, how can we be close to it or far from it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') agree that we don't need to wait for zero population growth to behave in a sustainable way. Richard Heinberg's 5 axioms of sustainability are one way of determining if we're behaving sustainably, though I know you hate those axioms.Stop being such a drama llama! ;) I don't hate 'em, but I do think sustainability axioms that assume infinite anything, including time, are damn nutty.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')You kept claiming we could grow the economy without consuming more resources when what you were referring to was the growth in GDP per unit of energy, or per capita. You have never shown that GDP has grown without consuming more energy or more resources (except for very rare and brief periods).How can energy intensity decrease w/o using the same resources for greater growth? That's the definition of energy intensity. Granted, I'm no saying we have done that, just that we can, which has been shown via decades of data.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hat is a logical fallacy. Limits to growth are not the same as assuming everyone believes in consuming resources infinitely.Hopefully, I've now buried your particular misunderstanding but, just in case ... I've never said that people believe in infinite resources (with the odd exception) and in our biosphere having an infinite ability to absorb our waste. What I've written is that people act in the same way they would if they did have such beliefs.How do you know how people act if they believe in infinite resources? No one can say why people do what they do, yet here you are claiming you can. What gives man? Does being telepathic or omniscient allow you to know how people would act if they believe in infinite resources? How do you know how people would act assuming they believed in anything, outside of trivial common stuff, when no one else can?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou say it's silly but have never shown why. The articles are about the endless pursuit of growth, not some short spurt of growth.There is no endless pursuit of growth TonyPrep. Anything that assumes endless anything, is just nuts. What we have here in the real world is growth and decline, with everything in between. As a cornucopian you can keep all the articles about infinite time and endless growth. I'm sticking to the real finite world thank ya very much. :lol:
Last edited by yesplease on Sat 01 Nov 2008, 14:03:28, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 11:09:09

For the advocates of sustainable growth. Pleas help a simpleton like me.

Utopialand is an island where all needs of citizens are met from the lands resources.

It's in balance and these permaculture bods are sustaining the productivity of the soil over time.

Infrastucture is in place to sustain life.

Everyone has enough food and income to survive.

How do we get growth without using extra resources?
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 11:46:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'Y')ou can check shadostats.com etc. for specifics on the many ways how inflation and GDP etc. are miscalculated.
The site isn't transparent, so offhand I didn't see how the difference in GDP was figured in order to determine if it was a reasonable conclusion or just more garbage on the internetz. That said, even assuming the GDP via shadowstats we've still seen energy intensity decrease. So either way we've still done more with less.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'I')t's interesting to see that the credit bubble began to swoon just after oil production/capita peaked, in 1979.

For all practical reasons, that was the real PO. And everything ever since has been borrowed time.
The credit bubble has been a relatively recent debacle, only popping up in the last five years or so thanks to poor (or no) lending standards.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 11:50:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'F')or the advocates of sustainable growth. Pleas help a simpleton like me.

Utopialand is an island where all needs of citizens are met from the lands resources.

It's in balance and these permaculture bods are sustaining the productivity of the soil over time.

Infrastucture is in place to sustain life.

Everyone has enough food and income to survive.

How do we get growth without using extra resources?
Lets say that in Utopialand, just like in Americaland, there are overweight individuals. If Utopialand would like to see population growth w/ no extra resources (food) used, they can simply eat less and maintain healthier/lower weights, then use the surplus calories to feed a proportionally larger population of healthier/smaller individuals. They use the same resources in order to see growth in some aspect by, in this case, altering the efficiency of population wrt food supply.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby nobodypanic » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 12:01:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'F')or the advocates of sustainable growth. Pleas help a simpleton like me.

Utopialand is an island where all needs of citizens are met from the lands resources.

It's in balance and these permaculture bods are sustaining the productivity of the soil over time.

Infrastucture is in place to sustain life.

Everyone has enough food and income to survive.

How do we get growth without using extra resources?
Lets say that in Utopialand, just like in Americaland, there are overweight individuals. If Utopialand would like to see population growth w/ no extra resources (food) used, they can simply eat less and maintain healthier/lower weights, then use the surplus calories to feed a proportionally larger population of healthier/smaller individuals. They use the same resources in order to see growth in some aspect by, in this case, altering the efficiency of population wrt food supply.

but now you've put an additional strain on the income and infrastructure of utopia. i am currious, what now?
User avatar
nobodypanic
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 13:58:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 'b')ut now you've put an additional strain on the income and infrastructure of utopia. i am currious, what now?
How so? We are using the same number of resources to feed, say... 10,000 150lb people instead of 5,000 300lb people, or whatever the proportion is. The income (food) is the same, we simply have more people growth by using resources in a different way. The infrastructure is, instead of dealing with 300lb people, now dealing w/ 150lb people, w/ proportionally less wear and proportionally more people. Etc...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 14:15:54

That's not growth.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby nobodypanic » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 14:24:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 'b')ut now you've put an additional strain on the income and infrastructure of utopia. i am currious, what now?
How so? We are using the same number of resources to feed, say... 10,000 150lb people instead of 5,000 300lb people, or whatever the proportion is. The income (food) is the same, we simply have more people growth by using resources in a different way. The infrastructure is, instead of dealing with 300lb people, now dealing w/ 150lb people, w/ proportionally less wear and proportionally more people. Etc...

i am assuming income = more than just food. also, i take 'infrastructure' to mean more than just simple load bearing structures subject to gross LBS per/unit.

i think you're really simplyfying the model a bit too much and in such a way so that it gives you your desired outcome.
User avatar
nobodypanic
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 14:41:55

You're being charitable it might be population growth it's not economic growth. More like communism actually.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 16:55:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')tating that someone having no position on something means they have a position on it is a logical contradiction.
I agree. Good thing I never said that, eh?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') have no clue how people would act assuming they believed we had infinite resources
And yet you gave it a go when answering the question (thinking that people wouldn't pay high prices for anything if they had such a belief). Get your story straight, yesplease.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'H')ow do you know what the behavior of people when they believe in an infinite world? How do you know what everyone is thinking?
It's called speculation, yesplease. Do you really have no imagination? Do you really only go about your life looking at the past with no thought about what people might think in the future or how they would react to events? You're right, I can't read minds or see into the future (especially at the same time). Can you? It seems to me that people (including governments that are striving to rekindle economic growth) are generally acting as though resources are infinite and as though the biosphere has infinite capacity to harmlessly absorb our pollution. What do you think, if anything?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')hich is a truism if I ever heard one.
You and I know that but it seems that most don't. If pointing out facts is a truism that you detest, how do any factual articles ever get written, and how do people come to be aware of those facts?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut stating that governments are responsible for economic re/construction in a world where everybody is responsible isn't correct.That's not a valid comment. It's a line from one article, in your interpretation, that you disagree with. Persumably, you think that the economy is a living entity in its own right and will come to realise the error of its ways, if left alone. At least you agree that governments have a part to play, so why not simply say that the offending article should have said that XYZ also has an important part to play? Instead you criticize the whole of the special report and label it as a waste of time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'W')e simply do more with the same resource. Not to say we can do that indefinitely, since we clearly can't.Thank you for that glimmer of realisation. Shame it had to be followed by an incorrect observation:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'B')ut we still have decades of data showing on a worldwide scale that we can have more growth w/o using more resources.Which is about energy intensity, in a growing economy, with growing markets, not about economic growth using the same resources. However, at least you realise that the kind of growth you envisage, for which there are only rare short examples, can't continue indefinitely. Perhaps you're starting to come round to some tacit agreement with the New Scientist special report.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')f we had held resource consumption constant, we still could have seen GDP growthAbove, you accuse me of pretending to know the minds of others and yet you are doing something similar here. Despite not having evidence to show that economic growth, consuming less or flat resources, is possible for more than very brief periods, you claim that reduction of energy intensity is proof that economic growth could continue if consumption of resources had been held level. That is pure speculation - hey, you can do it, see?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') harp on them because we have an editorial from a supposedly scientific group saying that what we have seen is impossible.The report doesn't say that. Perhaps you should read the articles again, without presupposing what they state.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'O')toh, we could only have 7.7 million people, all of which have an incredibly high standard of living, and still be no closer to sustainability. Positing extremes isn't exactly productive in this case IMO.I wasn't positing extremes. 7.7 billion is where the world population would be by 2020, if the growth we've seen over the last few years (which hasn't decreased) continues. And we already know that the developing nations with huge populations are striving to increase their living standards. So it's not extreme at all to ask why enabling such behaviour by becoming less resource intensive is a step toward sustainability. You use the phrase "more sustainable" several times, as though that was, somehow, different from "unsustainable". That's not true. That's not to say we can't take steps towards sustainability but they won't go in the right direction, if we don't have the right destination in mind. The destination that the world has in mind (as evidenced by the moves to shore up the financial system and the noises our politicians are making about growth) is not sustainability but an economy which is always growing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')here is no endless pursuit of growth TonyPrep. Anything that assumes endless anything, is just nuts. What we have here in the real world is growth and decline, with everything in between. As a cornucopian you can keep all the articles about infinite time and endless growth. I'm sticking to the real finite world thank ya very much. :lol:Hah, hah. We're in agreement that there is no infinite anything, as far as life on this planet is concerned. Why, then, do our societies pursue economic growth, and why is there no strategy for bringing that pursuit to an end?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Alcassin » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 21:50:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')hat's not growth.


You get growth from the rising efficiency, but YP didn't answer that.

So, let's say utopia land has finite solar/wind power infrastructure, and the overall electricity production reamins on the same level, however some Utopians invented new bulbs for light, which are more efficient and you can recycle more from there.

Here you go - this means your net capacity has grown, and you may produce more bulbs, if you cannot, you might get to another point. Which is reproduction.

Garbage, like every pollution, can be reused to something (some may build guns, other might use paper for any use). So, let's say Utopians have printing press, and print journals, the faster you recycle paper the sooner new edition may go out (this means increasing consumption = growth), the process of production not longevity of the products is taken into account.

So, the same goes with water treatment, the faster it's recycled the more you can use it. Of course it's not possible without inputs, but those inputs like solar, wind or ever-growing tree farms are quite good examples.

However there are also limits to efficiency like limits of calories you need just to survive. One of this is material limits, in electricity it depends on conductors, there are also human limits, and so on :)

But I don't think I'm ever going to see that kind of civilization, it's not the goal, nothing will be done, and business as usual will continue :) So cheer up ;)
Peak oil is only an indication and a premise of limits to growth on a finite planet.
Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
User avatar
Alcassin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed 20 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Poland
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 23:26:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')hat's not growth.
Population growth isn't growth... Then what is it?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 23:26:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', 'i') am assuming income = more than just food. also, i take 'infrastructure' to mean more than just simple load bearing structures subject to gross LBS per/unit.

i think you're really simplyfying the model a bit too much and in such a way so that it gives you your desired outcome.
Well we are in some sort of permaculture utopia, which by most standards doesn't involve much in the way of infrastructure, but that doesn't mean the model isn't simplified. It's just to illustrate that we can see growth of something while using the same amount of some resource it requires, which is wrt the batshitcrazy statement by a supposedly scientific magazine that more growth requires more resources. More grow can require more resources, more growth can require fewer resources, and more growth can require the same amount of resources. Less growth can require more resources, less growth can require fewer resources, and less growth can require the same amount of resources. Growth is one of those YMMV things and depends on the specific situation, regardless of how many batshitcrazy editorials say otherwise.
Last edited by yesplease on Sun 02 Nov 2008, 00:21:35, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 01 Nov 2008, 23:56:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')tating that someone having no position on something means they have a position on it is a logical contradiction.
I agree. Good thing I never said that, eh?
Are you having trouble w/ your short term memory?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'S')imply not considering something is not the same as acting something is infinite.
Sure it is.
According to your statement right there, someone who has not considered something, and has no position on it, means that they are acting as if they have a position on it, a logical fallacy. Barring of course you being omnipotent or able to read the mind of everyone on the planet. Why do you have so much trouble with logic TonyPrep?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') have no clue how people would act assuming they believed we had infinite resourcesAnd yet you gave it a go when answering the question (thinking that people wouldn't pay high prices for anything if they had such a belief).Again with the logical fallacies TonyPrep. How many strawman are you going to use? I never said that people wouldn't pay high prices for anything, just that they wouldn't pay high prices for an infinite resource. If there is an infinite amount of something in the context of economics, why would people pay more for it than they do for finite and scarce resources? I suppose you could say that they would because that's how it works in your imagination, but that isn't how the world works.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'H')ow do you know what the behavior of people when they believe in an infinite world? How do you know what everyone is thinking?It's called speculation, yesplease. Do you really have no imagination?So you're making speculative statements based off of your imagination? Now everything makes sense... Well, in this case there isn't much I can say. Most people prefer to base statements off of the real world TonyPrep, but if you prefer to speculate on sustainability in your imagination instead of using the real world there really isn't much to say, since you could imagine whatever you would like and do not seem to utilize logic or reason. I'd suggest taking a introductory logic class, but for all I know you could imagine that you already have.

I'm going to step out of this one. Exacerbating the delusional state of someone by engaging in a discussion where they can't demonstrate a grasp of basic logic probably isn't the best for the delusional individual, since it may be encouraging their psychological issues, and definitely isn't worth my time. My apologies if this offends you but I think it's best. :)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 01:45:10

OK so you get more efficient - what then?

In utopia land as described by YP outputs are the same.

GDP is same.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alcassin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')hat's not growth.


You get growth from the rising efficiency, but YP didn't answer that.

So, let's say utopia land has finite solar/wind power infrastructure, and the overall electricity production reamins on the same level, however some Utopians invented new bulbs for light, which are more efficient and you can recycle more from there.

Here you go - this means your net capacity has grown, and you may produce more bulbs, if you cannot, you might get to another point. Which is reproduction.

Garbage, like every pollution, can be reused to something (some may build guns, other might use paper for any use). So, let's say Utopians have printing press, and print journals, the faster you recycle paper the sooner new edition may go out (this means increasing consumption = growth), the process of production not longevity of the products is taken into account.

So, the same goes with water treatment, the faster it's recycled the more you can use it. Of course it's not possible without inputs, but those inputs like solar, wind or ever-growing tree farms are quite good examples.

However there are also limits to efficiency like limits of calories you need just to survive. One of this is material limits, in electricity it depends on conductors, there are also human limits, and so on :)

But I don't think I'm ever going to see that kind of civilization, it's not the goal, nothing will be done, and business as usual will continue :) So cheer up ;)
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 06:03:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'w')hich is wrt the batshitcrazy statement by a supposedly scientific magazine that more growth requires more resources
It was referring to economic growth as we know it, not economic growth in that strange world of yours where anything that is theoretically possible, can happen. In the real world, economic growth requires a growing consumption of resources. Only in your theoretical world does reduced energy intensity lead to economic growth; in the real world that doesn't happen, except in very rare and short periods. For economic growth over 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, and so on, more resources need to be consumed. Consequently, it wasn't a batshit crazy editorial.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: The Folly of Growth - New Scientist

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 02 Nov 2008, 06:12:57

I know where YP is coming from in a way but it doesn't make him right. In the 'real' world which we inhabit the link between real wealth and money has been broken. This cannot continue hence the shit we are in.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'w')hich is wrt the batshitcrazy statement by a supposedly scientific magazine that more growth requires more resources
It was referring to economic growth as we know it, not economic growth in that strange world of yours where anything that is theoretically possible, can happen. In the real world, economic growth requires a growing consumption of resources. Only in your theoretical world does reduced energy intensity lead to economic growth; in the real world that doesn't happen, except in very rare and short periods. For economic growth over 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, and so on, more resources need to be consumed. Consequently, it wasn't a batshit crazy editorial.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron