[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', ' ')"THEY" are too smart to allow the world to be trashed by petty wars that go nowhere, that accomplish nothing but further destruction. .

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')The insane think they are the only sane people.

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')The insane think they are the only sane people.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'N')obody with their sanity still in place would want it.

[MrBill]

You're right, Tony. The uneducated masses in places like India's slums have real freedom. They do not have to rely on anyone. They do not waste time going to school to read and write. Heck, they can start sewing buttons on clothes when they are five years old. They're all independent contractors. Self-made boys and girls. Something we should all aspire to for our children.

[TonyPrep]

If they're self reliant, then they are free. If they're not, then they're still dependent on others, and that would be the cause of their misery, if they are miserable.

I see that you like to be dependent on others, MrBill. That's fine, too. It takes all sorts to make a world.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')f they're self reliant, then they are free. If they're not, then they're still dependent on others, and that would be the cause of their misery, if they are miserable.

I see that you like to be dependent on others, MrBill. That's fine, too. It takes all sorts to make a world.

[Quinny]

This thread seems to have lost track a bit as it was originally about the folly of growth.

The current discussion re independence is a sideline to the growth issue. IMO no man is an island, but we should all strive to be as independent, but recognise that relationships with others is key. I quite like the term interdependance.

Some are saying that growth has to occur for 'the economy' to continue and that stasis will not work. I think this shows we have to re-model what we mean as the economy, as resource depletion will prevent growth.

If you are arguing for growth, then you can show the reasons for it, but you must also basically disagree with Peak Oil. My first post was to ask people to please prove Peak Oil theory wrong, come up with an alternative. No real alternatives (IMO) were given as most arguments seemed to be tech fixes that don't take into account the economic arguments.

Now approaching it from an economic POV people are saying that growth is needed.

Is the Crash Course bollocks? I can see that it might be flawed in some aspects, but the basic arguments strike a chord with me.

Those arguing for economic growth in times like this seem to be cornucopian in the extreme!

[MrBill]

RE Growth. Answer originally posted In Defense of Capitalism where I argue it is the definition not the concept of growth that is faulty.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Novus', 'I') can't believe anyone with a sound mind would still defend capitalism. Like a dog going back to its own vomit I guess.

Even a child understands you can't have infinite growth in a finite world.

[TonyPrep]

On a finite planet, economic growth is not sustainable. Some think that resources can be substituted at the same utility and scale as the original for so long as to make a nonsense of claims of limits to growth. Some people think it's possible to grow forever without adversely affecting our biosphere. Some people will come up with all sorts of exotic technological fixes to keep growth going. Many people concentrate on transportation fuels alone, or on energy alone thinking that it is the only problem or that enough energy can effectively allow resources to be created. Some people are convinced we will mine other off-earth bodies and inhabit other worlds.

All of the never-ending growth arguments require a large dose of wishful thinking, in my opinion. For this reason, I've never found them very convincing, even though it would make my life a lot easier, if they were true.

You will also hear the rather odd argument that because people won't accept reduced living standards (separate from quality of life), then growth must continue.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'O')r sustainable growth. On a finite planet sustainable growth is the only real alternative. Infinite growth is not necessary and in any case not possible.

Growth over time such as a sustainably harvested forest, or a field that is farmed in a sustainable manner through crop rotation and rebuilding and replenishing the soil are examples growth over time. Renewable resources like fishing and seafood if properly managed are another. These are examples of perpetual growth.

[galacticsurfer]

So given PO and peak coal and Peak Nat Gas and depletion of aquifers and soil erosion and growing population then growth is not the issue but declining per capita wealth or shrinkage in per capita real GDP (forget funny govt. statistics). So we get to how do we decline to a sustainable per capita GDP, gracefully or not?

In the coming emergency either cooperation or war will take place, regardless of which comes, hardship and inventiveness will be completely unavoidable. Due to massive overshoot and degradation of vital resources undershoot of population is entirely likely until a sustainable balance is again acheived. This process to come through to the other side is the bottleneck. We hear about this in regards to extinction events, where only a few speices survived to thrive afterwards in a relatively empty environment.

What civilizational model will be successful, at which level and intensity of energy use and population?

We come to the question of using up scrap on the decline, forgetting old techniques and technologies and learning new-old handicrafts on the way up into the new civilizational mode. Perhaps our great-great grandchildren will look at our present way of life as mythic or decadent depending on personal whim. At any rate fate as in a Greek tragedy will always be brought up as the deciding factor. Hubris before the Gods (whoever or whatever they call them) and unlimited greed and shortsightedness will be cited as the object lesson when one retells the story by the fireside of the ruins of the skyscrapers and huge overpasses.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'O')r sustainable growth. On a finite planet sustainable growth is the only real alternative. Infinite growth is not necessary and in any case not possible.

Growth over time such as a sustainably harvested forest, or a field that is farmed in a sustainable manner through crop rotation and rebuilding and replenishing the soil are examples growth over time. Renewable resources like fishing and seafood if properly managed are another. These are examples of perpetual growth.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') haven't considered how many grains of sand are in the Sahara, but that doesn't mean I think we have an infinite amount of sand in the Sahara. Similarly, just because someone doesn't consider something like natural gas reserves doesn't mean they believe in infinite natural gas.

[MrBean]

If someone want's to define dynamic natural balance based on input of solar energy as "growth", then fine, semantics schemantics.

What usually is meant by economic growth is, for example, any system based on usury aka taking interest on loan. Most simplest mathematical truth is that any usury system must grow at least the amount of interest to stay functional. Normally at the expence of other systems, hence usury leads to imperialistic cancerlike growth.

It's that simple.

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')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, which the article said we couldn't. A blatant contradiction.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')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, which the article said we couldn't. A blatant contradiction.

[MrBean]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')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, which the article said we couldn't. A blatant contradiction.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') am sorry that I carefully explained what I meant, and you still do not understand the difference between unlimited (or infinite) growth and sustainable growth over time.

[Quinny]

For once its you that's getting a bit confused MrBill you are not describing economic growth!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'O')r sustainable growth. On a finite planet sustainable growth is the only real alternative. Infinite growth is not necessary and in any case not possible.

Growth over time such as a sustainably harvested forest, or a field that is farmed in a sustainable manner through crop rotation and rebuilding and replenishing the soil are examples growth over time. Renewable resources like fishing and seafood if properly managed are another. These are examples of perpetual growth.