Thread Tools

**bobide** · July 21st, 04:04 PM

You're not going to see any scaling back from any of the first world countries tony. They've gotten a taste of "modern civilization" and the amenities it provides, they won't give it up. I fully expect to see economic incentives to drive further innovation to continue the lifestyle. I will say things certainly aren't fine, but I think I can safely say that the world will survive this storm.

Quote:

Define need. I need water to drink and I need oxygen to breathe and I need some nutritious food to eat. Everything else is a luxury—a want. Everything.

You said this about the world needing oil. Anything and everything that the modern world produces needs oil to happen. Remove oil and you remove the ability to produce any modern good.

**TonyD** · July 21st, 04:45 PM

Quote:

You're not going to see any scaling back from any of the first world countries tony. They've gotten a taste of "modern civilization" and the amenities it provides, they won't give it up.

You're right, and I don't actually expect it either; I just want to see it happen.

But you're wrong, also: If first world countries grow themselves to the brim they'll have no choice but to scale back. Nature takes care of that kind of thing. It's called a carrying capacity, and we're already in excess of it.*

Quote:

You said this about the world needing oil. Anything and everything that the modern world produces needs oil to happen. Remove oil and you remove the ability to produce any modern good.

What I said remains: they are no more necessary than they were 2 days ago. These things are not necessities because we want them. I like electricity, but it's not necessary for my life or even my well-being.

* Measuring consumption as the use of biologically productive land and sea, their data shows a global maximum sustainable footprint, at today's population, of just under 1.8 global hectares (gha) per person. Currently, by drawing down nonrenewable resources, we're a bit over 2.2gha, overshooting Earth's limits by about 25%.

What if everyone took the emailer's advice and converged on Mexico's level of per capita consumption? ... it wouldn't get us to 1.8gha. At 2.6gha, Mexico's footprint is 32% too high. A drop to the level of Botswana or Uzbekistan would put us in the right range.

John Feeny – Return of the population timebomb

**bobide** · July 21st, 05:15 PM

You seem to hold the view that we should take a collective step back. I'm more of the mindset that by continuing forward we can create the solutions to our problems. Growth needs growth to keep going I guess you could call it.

**TonyD** · July 21st, 05:45 PM

My very basic assertion, though, is that no matter how innovative they get they can't expand the walls. Science and technology can do amazing things, but they can't do that. If you take a plot of land and build a house that takes up every square inch of it, then you are never going to expand the footprint without going outside of your plot.

(I don't feel this is a false analogy. In this example you can still build up, but not out. But even then, you will reach your limitations: eventually the house will collapse.)

**TonyD** · July 21st, 08:10 PM

I read this using Lynx, so the line breaks came with it when I copied and pasted...

Quote:

We make ourselves better off, then, not by increasing the amount of resources on planet earth--that is, of
course, fixed--but by rearranging resources we already have available so that they provide us with more of
what we want. This process of improvement has been going on ever since the first members of our species
walked the earth. We have moved from heavy earthenware pots to ultrathin plastics and lightweight aluminum
cans. To cook our food we have shifted from wood-intensive campfires to clean, efficient natural gas. By
using constantly improving recipes, humanity has avoided the Malthusian trap while at the same time making
the world safer and more comfortable for an ever larger portion of the worlds population.

I like this. However, rearranging our resources to meet our wants (also our needs, but more importantly, at least in today's world, our wants) doesn't change the fact that we're working with limited resources and limited space. Unless the growth is cut it's a guarantee that we'll run into limits sooner or later. I just feel like it's better to do it on our own terms, because I can't imagine a world of 10 billion people fighting for whatever scarce resources are left.

Take for instance Dr. Barlett's example of Boulder.ⁱ

The repeating theme of what I'm trying to say is that the economy or inovation simply can't create more space or more resources. It just can't.

Next...

Quote:

What modern Malthusians who fret about the depletion of resources miss is that it is not oil that people
want; they want to cool and heat their homes. It is not copper telephone lines that people want; they want to
communicate quickly and easily with friends, family and businesses. They do not want paper; they want a
convenient and cheap way to store written information. In short, what is important is not the physical
resource but the function to be performed; and for that, ideas are the crucial input. Robert Kates notes that
technological discoveries have "transformed the meaning of resources and increased the carrying capacity of
the Earth"; economist Gale Johnson concludes that history has clearly confirmed that "no exhaustible resource
is essential or irreplaceable"; and economist Dwight Lee asserts that "the relevant resource base is defined
by knowledge, rather than by physical deposits of existing resources."

Romer sums it up this way: "Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and
undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has
underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas
remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding. Possibilities do not add
up. They multiply."

I really like the bulk of the first paragraph; it makes a good point, and an important one. The second paragraph, however, is from an unrealistically optimistic point of view, I feel. Given limited space and limited resources it's a certainty that under conditions of steady, perpetuating growth, there will come a time when that growth must end in a closed system. New recipes and new ideas can't create new space. The bacteria in the bottle are screwed come noon, and even when they found three times the space, they screwed themselves again at 12:02.

I think part of the trouble arises because it's perceived that I think it's all going to come crashing down tomorrow. I don't. But if it is continued as-is, it will happen. It might start happening now, but the full enormity of it all probably won't be realized for several generations. When you think long-term, or at least longer-term, it starts to make a little more sense. We can go on growing for quite a while, I'm sure. But we can't keep growing forever.

Quote:

Insights from New Growth Theory reframe many environmental problems and suggest some surprising solutions.
For example, one of the global environmental problems most commonly attributed to population and economic
growth is the loss of tropical forests. But is growth really to blame? According to the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research, the chief factor that drives deforestation in developing countries is
not commercial logging but "poor farmers who have no other option to feeding their families other than
slashing and burning a patch of forest. . . . Slash-and-burn agriculture results in the loss or degradation
of some 25 million acres of land per year."

This is misleading to say the least.

First, in terms of population, more people certainly means more deforestation, in the case of slash-and-burn just as much as in terms of industrial logging. Think about it: More people means more mouths to feed, more mouths to feed means more crops needed, more crops needed means more land, more agricultural land means less forest.

Not only that, but the money economy has created this situation. Before industrialization, most of "undeveloped" world was made up of people living in tribal societies pretty much living sustainable lifestyles that respected the landbase. (Admittedly, this is somewhat plagiarized.)² Now they don't have the luxury of choosing, at least most of the time. In the semi-developed world at least, money is just as much a requirement as it is here. Try going out and living with your family on some land you don't own without using money. You'll be arrested or killed. It just can't happen anymore.

Quote:

Another environmental problem frequently attributed to population growth is pollution. In 1972 The Limits to
Growth computer model projected that pollution would skyrocket as population increased: "Virtually every
pollutant that has been measured as a function of time appears to be increasing exponentially." But once
again, the new Malthusians had things exactly backward. Since 1972, Americas population has risen 26 percent
and its economy has more than doubled. Western Europe and Japan have experienced similar rates of growth.
Yet, instead of increasing as predicted, air pollutants have dramatically declined.

The favored target of such critiques is the United States, whose citizens are supposedly consuming more than
their fair share of the worlds goods and causing more than their fair share of its ills. The average
American, however, is not only a consumer but a producer of both goods and ideas. Americans and Europeans get
more done with relatively less because of their higher levels of education, greater access to productive
tools, superior infrastructure, democratic governments and free markets. As a consequence, output per hour of
labor in the United States today is ten times what it was a hundred years ago. Thus, the average Westerner
creates far more resources, especially knowledge and technology, than she or he consumes. Thus, too, both
Western economies and environments are improving simultaneously.

Interesting about the decreased amount of pollution. However, I'd like to see the figures on this myself, and this piece isn't particularly well document (it's not documented at all). I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm not saying it is, either...

I'm noticing a dangerous trend here: It seems like I'm seeing a lot of subjective claims put forth as support, and a lot of things are presented as if they were fact without anything to convince the reader of such. Things like "superior infrastructure"—it is superior according to whom? This is a subjective statement. I wasn't aware that ideas were something that should be counted up and quantified, either.

**TonyD** · July 21st, 08:11 PM

Quote:

All that said, if the right social institutions are lacking--democratic governance, secure private property,
free markets--it is possible for a nation to fall into the Malthusian trap of rising poverty and increasing
environmental degradation. The economies of many countries in Africa are declining, not because of high
population growth rates or lack of resources, but because they have failed to implement the basic policies
for encouraging economic growth: namely, widespread education, secure property rights and democratic
governance.

More presupposition: More education, more first world–like infrastructure and government, more happy. There is no evidence that can clearly suggest one thing or the other will come about from sending kids to school or having free elections. This kind of goes along with what I said earlier: Just because you say it's good doesn't necessarily make it so. Arguments of this sort are based upon unsound logic. I thought about this when the piece brought up ideas, too.

Not every idea will be a good one, nor can they all be implemented. I certainly agree that it's better to have more ideas, because you can create a huge pool of knowledge which to turn, but I think it's foolish to structure a society on Oh, but we can come up with lots of ideas! One of them has to be good! It completely lacks foresight.

I know I have this perceived negativity about me—that it seems like I'll never be pleased, that nothing will ever be good enough for me, that I argue just for the sake of arguing. I don't know exactly how to dispel this notion, but it is untrue. If the economy can keep going and do so forever and there will be no negative consequences and it will figure things out as it goes on, then awesome; I have nothing to worry about at all. The thing is, I'm just not that optimistic. I find it hard to believe that the same economy which has created a society that covers itself in garbage that poisons its very own water and food supplies and that values money over life is going to figure out a way to successfully fit everyone into a limited space comfortably with air to breathe and conditions that even the gods would find admirable. I just don't see it happening—this society hasn't instilled that sense of optimism within me.

If economists have it all figured out then we'll leave it at that. If they don't, maybe things will start to be scaled back. It doesn't matter to me. I just don't want to reach a point of no return. For those that want it, I really do hope that the money economy works out and that all the problems are solved. But I don't want it. I think modern society is unhealthy and insane, so of course I want it to die. There are aspects of it I like, but not the whole of it. If it's already figured everything out and I'm wrong, so what? I still don't want it.

I think I've said pretty much everything I wanted to say at this point (on that front), but I guess I'll bring it back solely to peak oil for a minute. My **** is way too long, I understand, but if you're not going to read it you're not going to read it, so what the hell does it matter?

Anyways, for some food for thought, we can think about the airline industry, because I feel this is a peek into what might be in store for the next several years. Obviously, it's not in good shape. It's said that it would take $80-90/barrel crude oil for most airline companies to even break even, and since that's a price we're not likely to see again (or maybe won't see ever again), we can conclude that the companies are going to be hurting for some time to come. Economists don't seem to have the solution (though maybe you do, Comrade). I heard one say, just today, that never in his life has he seen a company—or in this case, an entire segment of the market—make cutbacks in the face of demand. Cutbacks are always done when there is no demand. The demand is there, but the companies can't even afford to meet it.

DONE.

NOTES

1 A few years ago, one of the newspapers of my hometown of Boulder, Colorado, quizzed the nine members of the Boulder City Council and asked them, “What rate of growth of Boulder's population do you think it would be good to have in the coming years?” Well, the nine members of the Boulder City council gave answers ranging from a low of 1% per year.

...

Now, the highest answer any council member gave was 5% per year. You know, I felt compelled, I had to write him a letter and say, “Did you know that 5% per year for just 70 … ” I can remember when 70 years used to seem like an awful long time, it just doesn't seem so long now. (audience laughter). Well, that means Boulder's population would increase by a factor of 32. That is, where today we have one overloaded sewer treatment plant, in 70 years, we'd need 32 overloaded sewer treatment plants.

2 People in the developing world are dying from lack of health care.

They're dying from development. There were no starving people in Africa until the colonial powers came in and forced people out of their nature-based cultures to make them slaves in the extraction of "resources." What these people need is to be permitted to live autonomously in balance with the Earth, not to be made dependent on still another layer of expenses and "experts" and poisons to half-patch the troubles caused by the last layer. Of course, it's a little late now that the forests have been cut down. I'm not sure how we're going to get out of this hole, but at least we need to stop digging.

Ran Prieur - How to Drop Out: criticism and response

**TonyD** · August 16th, 03:05 PM

I hate to be a necromancer, but there are two questions I'm dying to have answered.

First, do you (the reader) feel that population can continue increasing forever? Malthus was writing about population, after all.

I came across this 1995 CATO Institute piece the other day that suggests population can continue growing for another seven billion years. This, to me, seems utterly insane.

Quote:

We have in our hands now--actually, in our libraries--the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years. Most amazing is that most of this specific body of knowledge was developed within just the past two centuries or so, though it rests, of course, on basic knowledge that had accumulated for millennia.

Second, how does the economy solve the problem of finite space and resources?

That's all.

**ComradeMolyneux** · August 18th, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyD

I hate to be a necromancer, but there are two questions I'm dying to have answered.

First, do you (the reader) feel that population can continue increasing forever? Malthus was writing about population, after all.

I came across this 1995 CATO Institute piece the other day that suggests population can continue growing for another seven billion years. This, to me, seems utterly insane.

Second, how does the economy solve the problem of finite space and resources?

That's all.

In regards to your second questions, economics studies allocating resources efficiently, thus economics is the study of solving problems of finite space and resources.

In regards to the 1st question, seeing as how we've never gone even 100 million years without some sort of catastrophe, while I'm sure it's possible to have populations grow for 7 billion years, looking at history, it seems unlikely.

**TonyD** · August 20th, 11:49 PM

I'll leave the absurdity of the 7-billion-years population growth alone since that's covered in the lecture (second post), but I do take issue with that Econ is the answer! answer. Besides, you admitted the unlikeliness, so I suppose that's good enough.

OK, so I guess you answered my question. But maybe I asked the wrong question. Since more space can't simply be created, and since resources are limited, I guess I am wondering how it is that the economy gets around the issues created by by finite space and resources. Surely, in a society that expects non-stop, continued growth, limits are a problem. Your answer, to me, seems to say that the economy indeed can't solve those problems and is limited by the physical world in which is has been constructed. It can work within that world and its constraints as effectively as possible, but it can't recreate that world from which it came. This is my main point—hell, it's my only point—and this is where the issues arise.

Even at a point of maximum efficiency, resource depletion would still become a problem if the population on a given landbase is too large. The reason for this is quite simple: you can't get more of any given resource by consuming it. Thus, even if the economy does its job and innovates and "progresses" to its very limits, it cannot make the planet grow in size nor can it make it contain more natural resources. This is the problem. Population growth only adds to it, because resources can't take up the same space as people, unless they genetically engineer plantpeople, I guess.

I fear that the people of this society are failing to plan ahead, or in some instance, even look ahead. That's what the example of the bacteria filling up the bottle is supposed to illustrate: they didn't realize there was a problem until it was too late. I'm not saying we'll have problems with space and resources right now, but if the people of the world continue on the path they are on and keep going "There is tons of ****! Just look around, you stupid greenie pinko ******!" then space and resources will be a problem. I don't know the time-frame and I don't even want to venture more than a ballpark guess, but I can see, with some degree of certainty, that if the cancer that is humanity continues to spread into every wild area of the world and cover it in pavement it's going to eliminate the entire ecosystem.

**ComradeMolyneux** · August 21st, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyD

OK, so I guess you answered my question. But maybe I asked the wrong question. Since more space can't simply be created, and since resources are limited, I guess I am wondering how it is that the economy gets around the issues created by by finite space and resources. Surely, in a society that expects non-stop, continued growth, limits are a problem. Your answer, to me, seems to say that the economy indeed can't solve those problems and is limited by the physical world in which is has been constructed. It can work within that world and its constraints as effectively as possible, but it can't recreate that world from which it came. This is my main point—hell, it's my only point—and this is where the issues arise.

I couldn't say this more, but, an intermediate microeconomics course would do so much for your general understanding of economics.

Before I go bumbling off in all sorts of directions, is the point you're trying to make, "We can't have sustainable continuous growth because we can't create an infinite amount of resources?"

Again, 2 sememsters of just microeconomics and you'd be so set in dealing with the type of questions you're asking. You might even be happy taking a course in industrial organisations.

**TonyD** · August 21st, 01:54 PM

I would say that yes, that's one way of putting what it is I have to say. The Earth is finite and growth can't continue forever in a finite system.

By continually telling me just to take a class you've addressed me in a condescending tone and avoided the issue simultaneously. You have assured me multiple times that the simplest of economics explain how the economy avoids resource and space constraints. If it's within your understanding, why don't you just explain it already? I can't help but think you're just avoiding it.

I don't have the hundreds of dollars (assuming I could somehow avoid having to pay tuition taking only one class per semester) it would cost to take those classes. And as a person with other obligations and desires, I can't rationally justify spending all that time going to the classes for several months just so I can have one thing cleared up for me. And if econ professors are anything like the econ students I've asked, or the analysts I've seen on TV or heard/read in interviews, they're going to just avoid the question anyways, or continually supply me with answers that don't actually explain how the economy is free from limits, even in a finite system.

If you're just being elitist about your knowledge of economics, then that's fine. All I'm asking is for you to use that knowledge to break it down for me. I don't think that's a whole lot to ask.

Thanks.

**ComradeMolyneux** · August 21st, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyD

The Earth is finite and growth can't continue forever in a finite system.

When resources get scarce, prices go high and force people to either use something else, or figure out a way to make their use more efficient. Why else do you think hybrid cars have become such a hot item in the past 8 years?

Going back to an earlier post, you said that production faces constraints. Granted, but why is it then that it was found in the 1959 economic paper, 'Reflections of Gross Farm Growth,' that annual output in the US was rising at a rate of 1.65 percent. There still the same amount of rain, sunshine and the growing seasons were just as long as they were in 1920, right?

You said that eventually, the population will get too big and there won't be enough land to produce what a population of this size needs (until we engineer plant people). To answer this, I invite you to go to any large metropolitan area, Los Angeles for example, go downtown and look up. Then come back here and let me know why people make such large buildings.

So my answer to your question is, how can growth be sustained in a finite system? by innovations, higher productivity, specialization, trade, etc. ...

When problems arise, people solve them.

Now to help you educate yourself without going bankrupt: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Mic...9351456&sr=8-1

Amazon.com: Price Theory and Applications (with Economic Applications, InfoTrac 2-Semester Printed Access Card): Steven Landsburg: Books

**TonyD** · August 21st, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComradeMolyneux

When resources get scarce, prices go high and force people to either use something else, or figure out a way to make their use more efficient. Why else do you think hybrid cars have become such a hot item in the past 8 years?

We've already went over this. I understand how that works, but the way it works doesn't prevent every resource's supply from dwindling and price from skyrocketing. At that point there is no choice but to turn to the already expensive, already scarce resources, which can only decrease in supply more.

Quote:

Going back to an earlier post, you said that production faces constraints. Granted, but why is it then that it was found in the 1959 economic paper, 'Reflections of Gross Farm Growth,' that annual output in the US was rising at a rate of 1.65 percent. There still the same amount of rain, sunshine and the growing seasons were just as long as they were in 1920, right?

You're refuting something I'm not saying. I have no doubt that output risen in that time-frame, and I have no doubt that output has risen significantly since 1959. And output will probably continue to rise, to a point. But it can't rise forever. The amount of rain, sunshine, and the growing seasons stay the same (more or less), but if the amount of usable land for agriculture shrinks it's a guarantee that output will decrease.

Quote:

You said that eventually, the population will get too big and there won't be enough land to produce what a population of this size needs (until we engineer plant people). To answer this, I invite you to go to any large metropolitan area, Los Angeles for example, go downtown and look up. Then come back here and let me know why people make such large buildings.

What I meant with this, specifically, was that a plant and a person can't occupy the same space simply because this is the way matter is. The idea came from this part of the lecture:

Now, if this current modest 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would grow to a density of one person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth in just 780 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2400 years. Well, we can smile at those, we know they couldn't happen. This one make for a cute cartoon; the caption says, “Excuse me sir, but I am prepared to make you a rather attractive offer for your square.”

There's a very profound lesson in that cartoon. The lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Now, we can debate whether we like zero population growth or don't like it, it’s going to happen. Whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People could never live at that density on the dry land surface of the earth. Therefore, today’s high birth rates will drop; today’s low death rates will rise till they have exactly the same numerical value. That will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years. So maybe you're wondering then, what options are available if we wanted to address the problem.

I'm glad you bring up big buildings, because up until this point they haven't been considered at all.

When we add vertical area to the equation, it becomes obvious that the amount of room for people becomes significantly higher. So then, maybe, we won't need to each occupy 1 square meter of dry land; we'll turn to the skys. Good. And if you're familiar with vertical farming, you might point out that we can grow food indoors, as well. Good. Have we avoided the problem of finite space and resources? Of course not. Bad.

To build buildings you need wood, steel... whatever. This comes from the earth; only so many buildings can be constructed with the resources within the earth. The buildings can only be built so high, due to the forces of gravity. And still, the dry land surface can only hold so many buildings. Constant growth, even if it goes on for a really long time, won't go on forever for these simple reasons.

Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)