The End.

[StrongTurd]

I mean, when a lion catches it's prey, I've never scene mother nature tell the lion, "now, now, mr.Lion, be 'fair', and share with your fellow hyenas". No, the catch is his, the lions, and only he gets to eat it or do with it what he wants.

afaik, Mother Nature is a De Facto Capitalist.

Aw, you're not getting it, are you? Don't worry. Stay with me and I'll try and explain to you using your own analogy. This is not higher grade material so you should follow easily:

Suppose a small lion population (say 10 individuals) was introduced into any given are where there's an abundance of natural resources (prey) that would allow it to start growing at, say, 2.5 percent per year. That's the same rate of population growth rate that humans sustained for much of the 20th century, by the way. This would mean that their population would double every 28 years, right? So after 28 years there'll be 20 lions.

Sustaining a population of 20 lions is no problem. They've got a vast habitat and there's plenty of meat to go around for everybody. But then another 28 years come and go and now the lions total 40 in number. Remember, their numbers are still growing at only 2.5% per year. Still, 40 lions is easily sustainable given the abundance of food.

I reckon by now you can now see where this is going, yes? Ja, in another 28 years you've got 80 lions and in another 28 years you've got 160 lions and so on and so on.

So here's the crunch: Sooner or later the lion population will reach a population density that will be exactly balanced by the reproduction rate of its prey. The lion population will still attempt to grow further but this will become impossible because there's simply not enough food to go around. This situation is called population overshoot and the lion population numbers have got only one way to go - down. It will go down until the lions and the game's numbers are balanced again at sustainable levels.

That's how nature works. Without outside interference, any natural ecosystem will remain in perfect balance for millions of years due to the sustainable nature of the food chain. Humans, on the other hand, believe that they are not subject to the laws of nature. Nooo, we see it as a disaster if our economic growth rate goes below 2.5 percent per year. But Mother Nature's got news for us: This infinite growth paradigm is unsustainable due to the finite resource base we've got at our disposal. Our concept of sustainable growth is incompatible with the laws of nature. Sustainable growth is an oxymoron.

As I mentioned before, the IEA is predicting a 6 percent decline rate in global oil reserves going forward. So in less than 12 years from now we'll be producing only half the amount of oil that we are doing right now. As I'm sure you are aware, our modern capitalist society is built on a foundation of abundant, cheap crude oil. How are you going to maintain economic growth when the available oil supply diminishes at 6 percent per year? So unless you can come up with (1) another energy source that offers the same portability, energy density and extremely low cost of light sweet crude and (2) can ramp up the production of this energy source to offset the decline rate of oil then, well, you've got a problem.

 

[km2]

blah blah Nature gives us lessons about growth blah blah

Don't try and claim that we should follow "nature" as our guiding principal. If we followed nature directly in our society, we'd just let the weak die off. If one town had a bad harvest they'd all just starve because that's tough luck. While nature shows us what a basic working system looks like, there's plenty to be improved upon.

blah blah Geometric growth is unsustainable blah blah

Your entire projection is based on a super-simplistic resource dominated economy. Yes, if all your country does is pull rocks out the ground then you will quickly reach your GDP limit. GDP isn't based on that though, You can turn R0.02 worth of beach sand into a R8000 computer chip, and lo and behold your growth is now flying along. Every time we create new inventions that reduces the amount of work we have to do we create the potential for further wealth growth. Is there a limit to this? Maybe, but when we reach that point we won't have very much else to worry about at all. Are we close to that limit? No.

blah blah Oh no, when we run out of oil our economy will collapse! blah blah

If we don't have good batteries and oil gets more and more expensive we just switch to (electric based) public transport like Europe and Japan. Goods will get transported via rail, and we'll only use oil for planes and boats where we have no other choice (at the moment that is). Eventually someone will develop cheap efficient batteries and then the oil problem will be solved, and when they solve that it will create further opportunities that continues the cycle of growth. But it's not like we're anywhere near a real "oil crisis" at the moment. Heck, even in our personal capacity we still piss away oil at the moment with cars which are 4x less efficient than something like a motorbike. There's still plenty of wiggle room with the available oil.

The problem with capitalism is that the very foundation of capitalism is growth.

Man, what do you think the foundation of communism is as well? What were the Soviet Five Year Plans about? What was China's Great Leap Forward supposed to do? Or any economic system? There's no economic system on earth that promotes the idea of "Oh well guys, this is as good as it's going to get, we'd better all just stop trying to make our lives any better and accept that this is the limit". The foundation of BEING A HUMAN BEING is growth. We're always trying to improve things, be it ourselves, our lives, or the potential for our children.

 

[PeterCH]

As I mentioned before, the IEA is predicting a 6 percent decline rate in global oil reserves going forward. So in less than 12 years from now we'll be producing only half the amount of oil that we are doing right now. As I'm sure you are aware, our modern capitalist society is built on a foundation of abundant, cheap crude oil. How are you going to maintain economic growth when the available oil supply diminishes at 6 percent per year? So unless you can come up with (1) another energy source that offers the same portability, energy density and extremely low cost of light sweet crude and (2) can ramp up the production of this energy source to offset the decline rate of oil then, well, you've got a problem.

Are you advocating a totalitarian government which controls all means of production which also subjugates free will and individual expression, ie
Communism?
If you are, and seem to be an environmentalist, do know that of the most
polluted regions - most are in the former Eastern Bloc and China.

The system you advocate, the system where a small group of people decides for the rest of us can't work, can't work because of human nature. People won't want to work if its for a common goal. People only work for themselves (incl their families). No-one is going to put in extra work so that someone else benefits unless they are extremely brainwashed and lack all motivation and individualism. But then again without without self-motivation how can someone work at all? Ok at the end of a barrel of a loaded gun .

 

[StrongTurd]

Don't try and claim that we should follow "nature" as our guiding principal. If we followed nature directly in our society, we'd just let the weak die off. If one town had a bad harvest they'd all just starve because that's tough luck. While nature shows us what a basic working system looks like, there's plenty to be improved upon.

Your entire projection is based on a super-simplistic resource dominated economy. Yes, if all your country does is pull rocks out the ground then you will quickly reach your GDP limit. GDP isn't based on that though, You can turn R0.02 worth of beach sand into a R8000 computer chip, and lo and behold your growth is now flying along. Every time we create new inventions that reduces the amount of work we have to do we create the potential for further wealth growth. Is there a limit to this? Maybe, but when we reach that point we won't have very much else to worry about at all. Are we close to that limit? No.

If we don't have good batteries and oil gets more and more expensive we just switch to (electric based) public transport like Europe and Japan. Goods will get transported via rail, and we'll only use oil for planes and boats where we have no other choice (at the moment that is). Eventually someone will develop cheap efficient batteries and then the oil problem will be solved, and when they solve that it will create further opportunities that continues the cycle of growth. But it's not like we're anywhere near a real "oil crisis" at the moment. Heck, even in our personal capacity we still piss away oil at the moment with cars which are 4x less efficient than something like a motorbike. There's still plenty of wiggle room with the available oil.

Wow! Yours might well be one of the most ignorant posts that I've seen for quite some time and, considering the amount of crud that one encounters on the Internet, that takes some beating.

I honestly could not find a single sentence in your post that is based in fact. As a result, it would be a menial task to poke holes in everything you said but then one has to wonder if the effort required in order to do so would be justified when one is debating with someone who believes that batteries is a substitute for oil. It took me about one second to decide not to go there. You win.

 

[PeterCH]

Buffett just added $13 Billion, the worlds smartest investor is also wrong?

One man against 1.1 Billion angry peasants, yes. He can very well be wrong.
People on this forum don't consider this scenario but it is a serious scenario
considered around the world and especially in Beijing. If the growth can't
continue - political instability will follow. China has a huge population, and even when they were all poor major upheavals occurred - do a Wiki search of the history of China - but with 300mil middle class (note that these people are not nearly as wealthy as European, US or JPN middle class) and the remaining poor are very poor - we could easily see serious problems over there.

 

[StrongTurd]

Canadian oil sands, extra heavy oil, gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids will have to make up the difference.

There's your problem right there. If you look at the mess that's currently happening in Alberta due to the unsustainability of tar sand oil production given the prevailing oil price and the effect that this is having on the planned increase in production capacity then you quickly realise that these unconventional sources of crude oil are only viable when the oil price is far in excess of $100 per barrel. Unfortunately, the world's economy does not function under those conditions as was so vividly demonstrated recently.

The end result is that the wheels fall off when conventional crude oil production peaks as it did back in 2006 (fact). If you read the entire IEA report you'll see that they expect unconventional sources to make up the shortfall and, without these, we're looking at a 6% p.a. depletion rate. Ain't going to happen.

 

[StrongTurd]

Are you advocating a totalitarian government which controls all means of production which also subjugates free will and individual expression, ie
Communism?
If you are, and seem to be an environmentalist, do know that of the most
polluted regions - most are in the former Eastern Bloc and China.

The system you advocate, the system where a small group of people decides for the rest of us can't work, can't work because of human nature. People won't want to work if its for a common goal. People only work for themselves (incl their families). No-one is going to put in extra work so that someone else benefits unless they are extremely brainwashed and lack all motivation and individualism. But then again without without self-motivation how can someone work at all? Ok at the end of a barrel of a loaded gun .

No, I'm not advocating ANY sort of system. All I know is that we've reached the limits to growth and that we'll have to come up with something else that IS sustainable. I'm too stupid to figure out what that will be exactly but even with my limited mental facilities I can readily point out the problem for you.

 

[km2]

I honestly could not find a single sentence in your post that is based in fact.

All I know is that we've reached the limits to growth

Your post is based on the wild theory that we shouldn't be aiming for growth as it's no longer sustainable. There is no evidence in the slightest that economies can't continue to make things more efficient and therefore produce more. You've already set the stage for total speculation.

debating with someone who believes that batteries is a substitute for oil

Eventually someone will develop cheap efficient batteries

Are you saying that we will never be able to develop a better fuel source than oil? That sounds far more ridiculous than what I'm saying. I'm using the term batteries as a generic term for energy storage, maybe it will be called something else like "fuel cell".

The problem with your entire theory is it's based on utter selfishness masqurading as "concern about balance". You don't hear the poor and the hungry chiming on about accepting growth limits. No, it's the guilty-rich who have the luxury of going "oh I'm doing just fine now, stuff everyone else, now I want to worry about the pretty lions I can look at when I go on safari" even though we can have both.

StrongTurd: I've decided that we've reached the limit of growth.
Poor people: Um, but what about us?
StrongTurd: Sorry, I've got what I need. I'm doing ok. I think we should just freeze the world exactly as it is. I hearby declare balance reached.
Poor people: But there's still plenty that can be done? We can use farming space more efficiently, we can use alternate energy sources to oil, many of us are unemployed who could help work too!
StrongTurd: Shush! Don't you care about nature? Have some cake.

 

[StrongTurd]

Dude, if nothing else you provide some good entertainment!

Are you saying that we will never be able to develop a better fuel source than oil? That sounds far more ridiculous than what I'm saying. I'm using the term batteries as a generic term for energy storage, maybe it will be called something else like "fuel cell".

I said previously that it would be a waste of my time to argue with someone who does not understand the difference between an energy source and a storage medium. I see you're continuing in the same vein by now mentioning fuel cells. Energy storage is not our problem; production is. Well, seeing that it is a lazy Sunday night, let me at least answer your question:

Yes, I do believe that it is technically possible to come up with an energy source to replace carbon-based energy provided that we are prepared to make the necessary sacrifice. It is no secret that none of the current commercial alternative and renewable energy sources can scale up remotely close to well enough in order to offer a viable alternative to light sweet crude, at least on a macro-economic scale. That is besides the obvious problems of their very low energy density, intermittency, lack of portability, very low EROEI etc.

For the short term the only solution to offset declining crude oil production would be to burn more hydrocarbons like coal and natural gas. These obviously come with their own set of problems like their huge carbon footprint and not to mention the fact that coal and gas reserves are also bound to peak much sooner if they are to be used to offset declining oil production. (See the ASPO website for lots of detail about this.)

For the medium to long term I believe that the only really viable energy source is fusion. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the current ITER research reactor that is being planned to go live towards 2020 will have a positive EROEI. The follow-up reactor that is planned to succeed ITER, called DEMO, is expected to be offer sufficient technological maturity in order to be considered a pilot commercial reactor. It is expected to start producing energy towards 2040.

There are two huge problems with these fusion research projects namely (1) the timescale - we do not have even close to 30 plus years available and (2) the funding levels which are, frankly, pitiful.

I quote the ITER Wiki:

On November 21, 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the project.[1] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years — 10 for construction, and 20 of operation — and cost approximately US$ 9.3 billion [2], which would make it one of the most expensive modern technoscientific megaprojects.

9 Billion? You got to be sh*tting me! 9 Billion is pocket change when compared to the magnitude of the problem we're facing. The International Space Station cost, what, 100 billion Euros and it is in all probability the most expensive white elephant in human history. What a joke! The politicians just gave the greedy bankers $2 trillion.

What is really needed is a project in the vein of Manhattan, Apollo or the German V2 but even bigger by an order of magnitude. This way the R&D can be compressed into a timescale that has got a fighting chance of saving our way of life. This will obviously require a massive international investment on a scale unprecedented in history.

So can fusion save us? Sure it can? Will it actually happen? Don't get your hopes up high.

The problem with your entire theory is it's based on utter selfishness masqurading as "concern about balance". You don't hear the poor and the hungry chiming on about accepting growth limits. No, it's the guilty-rich who have the luxury of going "oh I'm doing just fine now, stuff everyone else, now I want to worry about the pretty lions I can look at when I go on safari" even though we can have both.

StrongTurd: I've decided that we've reached the limit of growth.
Poor people: Um, but what about us?
StrongTurd: Sorry, I've got what I need. I'm doing ok. I think we should just freeze the world exactly as it is. I hearby declare balance reached.
Poor people: But there's still plenty that can be done? We can use farming space more efficiently, we can use alternate energy sources to oil, many of us are unemployed who could help work too!
StrongTurd: Shush! Don't you care about nature? Have some cake.

That's a bunch of BS which I'd rather ignore.

 

[km2]

I said previously that it would be a waste of my time to argue with someone who does not understand the difference between an energy source and a storage medium. I see you're continuing in the same vein by now mentioning fuel cells. Energy storage is not our problem; production is.

No. If energy production was our main worry, we wouldn't be at all concerned if oil was running out. We're dependent on oil not because it's the best way to generate energy, but because it's the most convenient way of transporting it around in a form that can be readily used.

Look at the destination of various "energy sources" in the US last year:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

If oil was such a great source for pure power generation you wouldn't see just 2% of oil going to produce electricity. It's the transport sector that depends on oil, and that depends on oil because it needs a nice movable stored form of energy. You can't operate trucks or planes with our current batteries. 96% of transportation's energy came from oil, thats the problem!

Hence my comments about batteries/"fuel cells" being the important development. It's lugging energy around that we need to work on.

We've still got options for generating power at the moment, we can use nuclear power, we've still got a lot of coal reserves, and even "renewable" energy is at least very close to cost viable (no it might not be as cheap as other kinds for the moment, but we could use it without crippling economies).

And yes, I'm all for researching other kinds of energy generation like fusion etc, but with electricity generation we still have enough other options right now. If fusion turns out to be super cheap, then we'll be able to continue the growth cycle even further. Otherwise people will have to work on making things more efficient... which also leads to further growth.

That's a bunch of BS which I'd rather ignore.

Maybe it was a little bit harsh

 

[Tassidar]

If we don't have good batteries and oil gets more and more expensive we just switch to (electric based) public transport like Europe and Japan. Goods will get transported via rail, and we'll only use oil for planes and boats where we have no other choice (at the moment that is). Eventually someone will develop cheap efficient batteries and then the oil problem will be solved, and when they solve that it will create further opportunities that continues the cycle of growth. But it's not like we're anywhere near a real "oil crisis" at the moment. Heck, even in our personal capacity we still piss away oil at the moment with cars which are 4x less efficient than something like a motorbike. There's still plenty of wiggle room with the available oil.

Here lies the flaw in your argument. You say that growth will continue, yet you then suggest that people stop buying cars (and using public transport) etc... In other words, you are saying that growth will continue, while people are cutting back on expenditure. This is clearly not possible, and your argument goes against itself.

Growth is based on the assumption, that people will continue to buy more and more luxuries, like cars. Our current models of growth can't really continue if due to high prices of raw materials, people cut back on expenditure.

 

[km2]

Here lies the flaw in your argument. You say that growth will continue, yet you then suggest that people stop buying cars (and using public transport) etc... In other words, you are saying that growth will continue, while people are cutting back on expenditure. This is clearly not possible, and your argument goes against itself.

Growth is based on the assumption, that people will continue to buy more and more luxuries, like cars. Our current models of growth can't really continue if due to high prices of raw materials, people cut back on expenditure.

No, this is again trying to directly link "raw materials" with "value". GDP, value and growth have nothing to do with raw materials, but rather to do with the utility that they provide. We don't buy cars for the sake of buying cars, there is no intrinsic value to a big metal box. They have value because they provide something for us, transport + status + entertainment. If the raw materials for a car end up being in short supply, but we're able to get our transport + status + entertainment from another source then we haven't lost anything that matters. Growth is primarily limited by our ability to provide more utility, more things that people want, and the raw materials are just the means to that end. So the question we need to ask is: Will we reach a point where nobody needs or wants anything more done for them? Because that is the limit of the growth based economy.

To take the classic example of this, look at diamonds. They're valuable because De Beers have managed to give them value, not because they're necessarily scarce (i.e. you can produce some nearly indistingishable cheap artificial diamonds). De Beers have managed to turn them into a symbol for love, something which matters to people, and have managed to create growth like that.

Basically if the automobile industry disappears because people find other ways to get around, and those people who lost their jobs then go on to fill other needs that people have, then we get net growth.

 

[icyrus]

Those Wall Street bankers have truly created the biggest sh*t storm since the dawn of the industrial age:

Did the peak oil bus become a bit boring?

I'm sure it will make a comeback though. It always does.

 

[Tassidar]

No, this is again trying to directly link "raw materials" with "value". GDP, value and growth have nothing to do with raw materials, but rather to do with the utility that they provide. We don't buy cars for the sake of buying cars, there is no intrinsic value to a big metal box. They have value because they provide something for us, transport + status + entertainment. If the raw materials for a car end up being in short supply, but we're able to get our transport + status + entertainment from another source then we haven't lost anything that matters. Growth is primarily limited by our ability to provide more utility, more things that people want, and the raw materials are just the means to that end. So the question we need to ask is: Will we reach a point where nobody needs or wants anything more done for them? Because that is the limit of the growth based economy.

To take the classic example of this, look at diamonds. They're valuable because De Beers have managed to give them value, not because they're necessarily scarce (i.e. you can produce some nearly indistingishable cheap artificial diamonds). De Beers have managed to turn them into a symbol for love, something which matters to people, and have managed to create growth like that.

Basically if the automobile industry disappears because people find other ways to get around, and those people who lost their jobs then go on to fill other needs that people have, then we get net growth.

OK. Let's go back to basics.
Continuous growth isn't possible, because bottlenecks will eventually be reached. To illustrate this simple point, imagine that population carries on growing at a steady 2% p.a. Now assuming the food supply were able to keep up, we would eventually reach a point where there was nowhere left to stand on the face of the planet.

Let's now assume that oil is in short supply. This has various effects:
(1) The price of owning a car goes up (2) The price many petroleum based goods go up (think plastics, cosmetics etc...) (3) The price of food rises (fertlisers, tractors etc) (4) Inflation more generally goes up (transport), all these rising prices slow down the economy. So even if people shift away from driving cars, there will be other effects on the economy that act to slow growth.

Let's simplify this further now, and assume that the price of steel goes up. People then shift their expenditure away from cars, into more luxurious houses. What then happens? The price of building materials go up etc... Continuous growth in manufacturing isn't possible, because eventually there will be a bottleneck, since the resources of the planet are limited. Incidentally, one of the most limited resources is water, and this could have serious effects on growth in the coming years.

OK, you argue, well agriculture and the service sectors are two other areas that could continue to grow.

Let's look at agriculture:
It has an inelastic demand. This means that even if prices drop, demand doesn't increase that much. Why, because there is only so much food you can consume. Remember too, that agriculture also faces serious bottlenecks in terms of arable land, and more importantly available water.

Now let's look at the service sector:
It's helpful to remember that the service sector is heavily dependent on the manufacturing sector. For example: IT technicians rely on there being computers, motor mechanics rely on there being cars, the music industry relies on people having sound systems etc... In short, if manufacturing growth dries up, so too will growth in the service sector.

To sum up continuous growth on planet earth is not physically possible, as resources are limited. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, if one looks at the fundamentals. Therefore the capitalist system is not ultimately sustainable, since it relies on steady growth.

Ultimately, I would argue is that the main problem we face though, is not one of capitalism, but rather one of population growth (as per Malthus). Of course, a negative population growth, would collapse our current capitalist system...

 

[km2]

To sum up continuous growth on planet earth is not physically possible, as resources are limited. It is not a difficult concept to grasp, if one looks at the fundamentals. Therefore the capitalist system is not ultimately sustainable, since it relies on steady growth.

Ultimately, I would argue is that the main problem we face though, is not one of capitalism, but rather one of population growth (as per Malthus). Of course, a negative population growth, would collapse our current capitalist system...

Look I agree that there is a finite limit on how many people we can fit on Earth. I also know that there has been a constant underestimation of what that limit is (as you mention Malthus and his theory that we'd reach carrying capacity in the 19th century). If you look at the flagship capitalist countries (USA, Western Europe and Japan) they seem to be doing the best job of controlling population growth, with the only population increases coming from immigrants. It's the rubbish countries where people breed like bunnies.

Fundamentally all economic systems are about answering the question "where do we put our spare resources so as to get the most benefit". Capitalism says we put this in the hands of people who know how best to make more spare resources (profit), wheras communism puts it in the hands of the state who does pretty much the same thing but involving a bunch of disinterested civil servants.

None of these necessarily require growth to work, it's just that systems are often chosen based on which one delivers the most growth. People like growth. Ultimately all economic systems aim towards growth. That's really the only way you can measure the performance of an economic system (if you want it to be about minimising the impact to the environment, then increase taxation on activities which hurt the environment, but protecting the environment does not alone make an economic system). Japan's population has basically stalled along with its economic growth, but even so capitalism is still working far better in a no-growth environment than any other economic system has.

Saying that though I think you're not taking into account that most production is circular. I may have had 5 computers over the past decade, but have I used up 5 lots of raw resources? No, the old computer cases go back and become new computer cases, the gold on the old PCBs gets remelted down and used again. The raw resources don't disappear, they just spin around the cycle of production faster. So yes, it takes a net input of energy to do all that conversion, but the actual materials are always around ready to be recycled or remined. It's like the difference between a 10 year old car and a new car isn't in the amount of resources, it's in how those resource are put together.

 

[Tassidar]

Look I agree that there is a finite limit on how many people we can fit on Earth. I also know that there has been a constant underestimation of what that limit is (as you mention Malthus and his theory that we'd reach carrying capacity in the 19th century). If you look at the flagship capitalist countries (USA, Western Europe and Japan) they seem to be doing the best job of controlling population growth, with the only population increases coming from immigrants. It's the rubbish countries where people breed like bunnies.

Fundamentally all economic systems are about answering the question "where do we put our spare resources so as to get the most benefit". Capitalism says we put this in the hands of people who know how best to make more spare resources (profit), wheras communism puts it in the hands of the state who does pretty much the same thing but involving a bunch of disinterested civil servants.

None of these necessarily require growth to work, it's just that systems are often chosen based on which one delivers the most growth. People like growth. Ultimately all economic systems aim towards growth. That's really the only way you can measure the performance of an economic system (if you want it to be about minimising the impact to the environment, then increase taxation on activities which hurt the environment, but protecting the environment does not alone make an economic system). Japan's population has basically stalled along with its economic growth, but even so capitalism is still working far better in a no-growth environment than any other economic system has.

Saying that though I think you're not taking into account that most production is circular. I may have had 5 computers over the past decade, but have I used up 5 lots of raw resources? No, the old computer cases go back and become new computer cases, the gold on the old PCBs gets remelted down and used again. The raw resources don't disappear, they just spin around the cycle of production faster. So yes, it takes a net input of energy to do all that conversion, but the actual materials are always around ready to be recycled or remined. It's like the difference between a 10 year old car and a new car isn't in the amount of resources, it's in how those resource are put together.

How simple can I make this?

At current growth rates, the world economy will double in 20 years. That means you (assuming no increase in efficiency - not such a tenuous assumption) need to double the raw materials. In 40 years, the world economy will be 4 times what it is today - that means take everything that exists today and multiply it 4 fold, scary isn't it. Do you really, truly believe that we have the raw materials to sustain this, even with recycling (which you wrongly assumed that I didn't take into account).

Even if these raw materials 'spin around' the production cycle faster, energy will become a massive issue - as energy requires raw materials.

Lastly, consider the effects of externalities (externalities are factors that economic models can't take properly into account). The main externalities being pollution and environmental degradation. With increase production comes increased pollution, and a damaged environment. These factors serve to decrease utility (and hence economic value), but since our economic models aren't good at taking them into account, they tend to get ignored.

In other words, even if the growth were sustainable, and you could sit inside your climate controlled, air filtered house, living a virtual reality life, leaving your house would be hell, as the air would be unbreathable, there would be no wildlife to see, no parks to enjoy, just a dreary gray dangerous world. For all your material possessions, your quality of life would still be destroyed.

Is this what you want from the world? Because this is what our growth path will eventually cause. Don't believe me? Read up on extinctions of plants and animals, the destruction of the coral reef, the rising carbon levels in the world, the destruction of the Amazon and Indonesian rain forests. Read about the melting of the permafrost in Siberia, something which could have a more devastating effect on the climate than anything we have ever encountered. Read all this, and realise that this what our growth is causing. Now look me in the eye and tell me that this is sustainable.

 

[Tassidar]

Returning to the original subject - the problem for America is that it hasn't really been growing. All its growth was built on a house of cards - debt. If one took America's debt out of the equation, its growth figures would look somewhat less healthy.

Those who say the economy will recover in two years, are essentially saying that the housing bubble will re-inflate and consumer spending will increase. But for America, the problem is that its productive industry is in decline. General Motors faces imminent closure (due to lack of cash) and Ford is only slightly better off. These companies used to be among the largest in the world. These aren't the only American companies to have been hit.

America's economy is therefore unsustainable, and since it is the no1 economy in the world, the world economy is therefore unsustainable.

 

[StrongTurd]

Returning to the original subject - the problem for America is that it hasn't really been growing. All its growth was built on a house of cards - debt. If one took America's debt out of the equation, its growth figures would look somewhat less healthy.

Those who say the economy will recover in two years, are essentially saying that the housing bubble will re-inflate and consumer spending will increase. But for America, the problem is that its productive industry is in decline. General Motors faces imminent closure (due to lack of cash) and Ford is only slightly better off. These companies used to be among the largest in the world. These aren't the only American companies to have been hit.

America's economy is therefore unsustainable, and since it is the no1 economy in the world, the world economy is therefore unsustainable.

Some excellent posts there. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is no such thing as sustainable growth. If your resource base is finite, you'll run into resource depletion sooner or later. When that happens you need to come up with a new paradigm that is not based on infinite growth.

One of my favourite authors is Dr. Albert Bartlett from the university of Boulder in Colorado. I've got one of his videos on my PC which explains one of the biggest problems facing man:

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

As soon has one has grasped the exponential function, then one has also grasped the impossibility of exponential growth.

 

[StrongTurd]

Did the peak oil bus become a bit boring?

I'm sure it will make a comeback though. It always does.

Um, we ARE discussing peak oil here...

 

[Tassidar]

Some excellent posts there. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. There is no such thing as sustainable growth. If your resource base is finite, you'll run into resource depletion sooner or later. When that happens you need to come up with a new paradigm that is not based on infinite growth.

One of my favourite authors is Dr. Albert Bartlett from the university of Boulder in Colorado. I've got one of his videos on my PC which explains one of the biggest problems facing man:

As soon has one has grasped the exponential function, then one has also grasped the impossibility of exponential growth.

Fully agreed. Will keep an eye out for Bartlett.

One the subject, this might interest you:

The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.

Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP - in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a reasonably safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2 emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than 0.6 tonnes per person - considerably lower than in India today. The conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth taking a serious hit. Can this really work?

With today's global income, achieving the necessary carbon footprint would mean getting the T factor for CO2 down to 0.1 tonnes of CO2 per thousand US dollars - a fivefold improvement. While that is no walk in the park, it is probably doable with state-of-the-art technology and a robust policy commitment. There is one big thing missing from this picture, however: economic growth. Factor it in, and the idea that technological ingenuity can save us from climate disaster looks an awful lot more challenging.

First, let us suppose that the world economy carries on as usual. GDP per capita will grow at a steady 2 or 3 per cent per year in developed countries, while the rest of the world tries to catch up - China and India leaping ahead at 5 to 10 per cent per year, at least for a while, with Africa languishing in the doldrums for decades to come. In this (deeply inequitable) world, to meet the IPCC target we would have to push the carbon content of consumption down to less than 0.03 tonnes for every thousand US dollars spent - a daunting 11-fold reduction on the current western European average.

But what politicians will not admit is that we have no idea if such a radical transformation is even possible, or if so what it would look like. Where will the investment and resources come from? Where will the wastes and the emissions go? What might it feel like to live in a world with 10 times as much economic activity as we have today?

Instead, they bombard us with adverts cajoling us to insulate our homes, turn down our thermostats, drive a little less, walk a little more. The one piece of advice you will not see on a government list is "buy less stuff". Buying an energy-efficient TV is to be applauded; not buying one at all is a crime against society.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.100-special-report-
why-politicians-dare-not-limit-economic-growth.html