Perpetual economic growth

[Narz]

3. Is endless economic growth even sustainable in the long term? Wouldnt it ultimately hit a wall, like finite resources, finite arable land, sustainable population, waste, pollution, and all of that?

Conceivably if society were to be able to run on 100% renewable & "clean" fuel, recycle absolutely everything & keep a small stable population perhaps unlimited "growth" would be possible (though IMO the only "unlimited growth" that would be desirable would be growth of knowledge & wisdom, more "stuff" does not bring happiness).

However, I don't believe exponential growth can be sustained much further into the this century (at most 10 more years). We already are causing incredible damage to our world's equilibrium. I think we will have to transition to a zero growth, potentially negative growth economy for a few decades (maybe a century or more). I believe this will overall be both good & necessary for our species. This will be despite much suffering & keeping in mind much suffering already exists but in many ways it is for nothing now.

IMO, humanity knows it's hubris ultimately is not really true or factual & that the natural cycles of expansion & contraction are inescapable. I believe we are seeing the beginning of this now with our extreme inflation in 2007 and the beginning of the teetering of the global financial markets.

I am a layperson & not even a particularly (classically) educated one but I believe I am good at noticing patterns & trends. We'll see.

BTW, Jericho, out of curiosity, has there been any period in human history that experienced rapid economic growth WITHOUT rapid population growth (I'm not talking about by country, by world wide)?

 

[JerichoHill]

Narz,

Such has occured only recently and in the developed countries. To talk about worldwide growth introduces a problem of aggregation here, rendering data meaningless. Our technology has only recently gotten to the point where physical labor is not the critical component of a developed economy.

Economic growth, in the future, will likely be led from green energy development, bio-med, the internet, and other intangible (at least now) ideas. But this growth will occur. We're dealing with a recession in the US and some contagian throughout the world, but this is not a world-altering financial event. The current recession will likely not be any worse than 1979-1981, which was VERY BAD, and is something you do not want to live in. But we emerged from it, didn't we (the world).

Whomp can fill you in on that recession and why it was so bad, especially in the US.


Narz, I know you LOVE to talk about financial doom, but we're not seeing it here. I remember Stagflation, and Black Friday and Black Monday. Those were BAD. This isn't even close.

Economic growth is no longer being driven by the developed countries alone. In fact, its the developing (2nd world) countries that are the drivers. As economies mature they tend to grow slower.

 

[Narz]

Narz,

Such has occured only recently and in the developed countries. To talk about worldwide growth introduces a problem of aggregation here, rendering data meaningless. Our technology has only recently gotten to the point where physical labor is not the critical component of a developed economy.

Physical labor is still absolutely critical. Robots cannot do all the work of growing food, sewing clothing & answering call centers.

Economic growth, in the future, will likely be led from green energy development, bio-med, the internet, and other intangible (at least now) ideas. But this growth will occur. We're dealing with a recession in the US and some contagian throughout the world, but this is not a world-altering financial event. The current recession will likely not be any worse than 1979-1981, which was VERY BAD, and is something you do not want to live in. But we emerged from it, didn't we (the world).

We weren't reaching any ceilings in resource extraction then.

I hope you're right.

Whomp can fill you in on that recession and why it was so bad, especially in the US.

I was alive in 1979 you know (I just don't remember much, just having been born and all ). Anyway, I do have some rudimentary knowledge of the precipitating factors.

Narz, I know you LOVE to talk about financial doom, but we're not seeing it here. I remember Stagflation, and Black Friday and Black Monday. Those were BAD. This isn't even close.

Well, this is just the beginning. We don't know where this will lead.

Economic growth is no longer being driven by the developed countries alone. In fact, its the developing (2nd world) countries that are the drivers. As economies mature they tend to grow slower.

Do you think a healthy world economy could ever be zero-growth (economically)? If "developed' nations "naturally" don't grow as fast, wouldn't it be possible them to eventually reach a plateau? And would this necessarily be bad?

 

[lovett]

Physical labor is still absolutely critical. Robots cannot do all the work of growing food, sewing clothing & answering call centers.

Answering call centres is physical labour now huh?
Bonus time!

Do you think a healthy world economy could ever be zero-growth (economically)? If "developed' nations "naturally" don't grow as fast, wouldn't it be possible them to eventually reach a plateau? And would this necessarily be bad?

I think it would be pretty awful, from a philospical point of view.
Since growth would always be pushed forwards by new thoughts, were a nation to plateau (given no decrease in assets/population ect) it would imply that the vast majority of original thought had stopped.
Sounds terribly dull, frankly.

 

[Narz]

Answering call centres is physical labour now huh?
Bonus time!

Ok, that was a bad analogy. I should have stuck w/ manufacturing & transportation (requires lifting) examples.

I think it would be pretty awful, from a philospical point of view.
Since growth would always be pushed forwards by new thoughts, were a nation to plateau (given no decrease in assets/population ect) it would imply that the vast majority of original thought had stopped.
Sounds terribly dull, frankly.

That's the question though, isn't it - can one expand mentally, emotionally, "philosophically" without an expansion in material economic wealth? I'd say the answer is clearly yes.

 

[LightFang]

Do you think a healthy world economy could ever be zero-growth (economically)? If "developed' nations "naturally" don't grow as fast, wouldn't it be possible them to eventually reach a plateau? And would this necessarily be bad?

It's simply due to the sizes. It depends on how we're measuring growth.

If we do it by percentages, then sure! As economies grow larger, they seem to grow less and less. Maybe a gain of 1%, for example. But that 1% is a huge amount, whereas in developing countries, if they grow, say, 10%, that might not be so large. But it's still good.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@Physical labor is still absolutely critical. Robots cannot do all the work of growing food, sewing clothing & answering call centers.
Not yet...

We weren't reaching any ceilings in resource extraction then.
Then we change the resources, hello solar!

I hope you're right.
I'm right.


I was alive in 1979 you know (I just don't remember much, just having been born and all ). Anyway, I do have some rudimentary knowledge of the precipitating factors.
How'd your parents like it. Mine hated it, it was bad. Whomp?


Well, this is just the beginning. We don't know where this will lead.
Yeah we do. Suprime exposed has been priced in. Ripple effects in turn lead to a worldwide slowdown, a US recession, and economies recover in a few years at worst.

Do you think a healthy world economy could ever be zero-growth (economically)? If "developed' nations "naturally" don't grow as fast, wouldn't it be possible them to eventually reach a plateau? And would this necessarily be bad?
No to zero growth. Less growth sure? That's being a modern economy. Think Punctuated equilibrium, but economically speaking.

It's simply due to the sizes. It depends on how we're measuring growth.

If we do it by percentages, then sure! As economies grow larger, they seem to grow less and less. Maybe a gain of 1%, for example. But that 1% is a huge amount, whereas in developing countries, if they grow, say, 10%, that might not be so large. But it's still good.

Bingo!

 

[BasketCase]

3. Is endless economic growth even sustainable in the long term? Wouldnt it ultimately hit a wall, like finite resources, finite arable land, sustainable population, waste, pollution, and all of that?

It is absolutely sustainable. Here's the thing you left out of your list: technology.

Whereas supplies of oil, uranium, etc. are limited, ideas are not. New technology allows us to do more with less resources (and to make use of new resources that were once useless to us) and with less work. As long as people keep coming up with new ideas and expanding the limits of human knowledge, our economies and our lives in general will continue to improve with no known limit.

4. Is the perpetual growth model responsible for most of the problems facing the world today?

No. Overpopulation is.

 

[Narz]

@@Physical labor is still absolutely critical. Robots cannot do all the work of growing food, sewing clothing & answering call centers.
Not yet...

Not in the near future.

We weren't reaching any ceilings in resource extraction then.
Then we change the resources, hello solar!

Solar is great but I'm highly skeptical it can be scaled up enough to keep up w/ energy demand. Accroding to wiki solar current provides .04% of the world electricity usage. Increase it by 2,500% and that's still only 1%. Barring a major breakthru there simply isn't time for solar to take over for coal. And this doesn't even cover transportation (unless we can phase in an all electric car fleet over the next couple decades, and I have yet to hear about any plans for large electric aircraft).

I hope you're right.
I'm right.

Time will tell. Overconfidence won't help matters.

I was alive in 1979 you know (I just don't remember much, just having been born and all ). Anyway, I do have some rudimentary knowledge of the precipitating factors.
How'd your parents like it. Mine hated it, it was bad. Whomp?

I'll ask them.

Well, this is just the beginning. We don't know where this will lead.
Yeah we do. Suprime exposed has been priced in. Ripple effects in turn lead to a worldwide slowdown, a US recession, and economies recover in a few years at worst.

Hate to break it to you but you can't predict the future. Even if economics was a hard science there simply are too many variables. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Do you think a healthy world economy could ever be zero-growth (economically)? If "developed' nations "naturally" don't grow as fast, wouldn't it be possible them to eventually reach a plateau? And would this necessarily be bad?
No to zero growth. Less growth sure? That's being a modern economy. Think Punctuated equilibrium, but economically speaking.

So if we were forced to deal w/ zero growth or negative growth what do you predict would happen to the world economy?

 

[JerichoHill]

Depends on what's happening to world population I suppose, in one respect.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It is absolutely sustainable. Here's the thing you left out of your list: technology.

Whereas supplies of oil, uranium, etc. are limited, ideas are not. New technology allows us to do more with less resources (and to make use of new resources that were once useless to us) and with less work. As long as people keep coming up with new ideas and expanding the limits of human knowledge, our economies and our lives in general will continue to improve with no known limit.

There are no guarantees of technology solving problems faster than overpopulation or overconsumption of resources causes them. Economics is like evolution; species sometimes can't evolve fast enough to not go extinct.

 

[Narz]

There are no guarantees of technology solving problems faster than overpopulation or overconsumption of resources causes them. Economics is like evolution; species sometimes can't evolve fast enough to not go extinct.

Exactly. We have no more a guarantee to adapt than any other species.

 

[Mise]

There's lots of reasons why fertility rates fell in the West. Economic growth and fertility rates are related, but there's no causal relationship (mainly because "economic growth" is itself simply a measure, not a driver in and of itself).

 

[JerichoHill]

Im pretty sure there was a causal relationship established in the scientific literature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox




Yup!

 

[Mise]

Im pretty sure there was a causal relationship established in the scientific literature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox




Yup!

"Economic growth" is just a measure. It's intangible, it doesn't "cause" things. The actual causes were things like lower infant mortality rate (due to better medicine, hygiene, an nutrition) meaning that fewer offspring were needed to maintain a steady population and "work the fields", as it were; birth control pills; two world wars (lack of men); etc. (Which reminds me -- where did the Baby Boomers come from?)

Some of these causes also resulted in growth in the West's GDP, but most sensible people wouldn't attribute, for example, medical advances to "GDP growth".

Oh, and, that article relates to GDP, not GDP growth.

 

[innonimatu]

Economic growth, in the future, will likely be led from green energy development, bio-med, the internet, and other intangible (at least now) ideas.

"The economy", as it is understood now, depends on the enforcement of property rights. Intangible ideas cannot be owned (cannot be controlled), people are trying but they'll ultimately fail.

There were some funny news the past week about bank collapses in Second Life. I'm only surprised that governments have not actively been promoting virtual worlds as an escape for the problem of eternal growth (the eventual lack of it), but it may still happen. It'll be funny to watch!

It is absolutely sustainable. Here's the thing you left out of your list: technology.

Whereas supplies of oil, uranium, etc. are limited, ideas are not. New technology allows us to do more with less resources (and to make use of new resources that were once useless to us) and with less work. As long as people keep coming up with new ideas and expanding the limits of human knowledge, our economies and our lives in general will continue to improve with no known limit.

There are two obvious limits to technology: complexity and power. The effects of the first are difficult to predict - we've managed to handle increasing complexity so far. But make no mistake, it's becoming harder to do so. Human lifespans are limited, and we're spending more and more of those simply learning to handle the existing complexity, before being able to add to it. We'll hit a limit, sooner or later. Or cease to be human.

The second limit will likely never be reached, but in a scenario of eternal growth we'd reach it: technology provides power over the material world, power that can, inescapably, be used destructively. Allow technology to progress enough and we will manage to destroy ourselves, hard as it may seem. Past examples of the uses of (and even the motivation to develop) new technology are not encouraging.

I'm really not an optimist...

 

[zjl56]

Trends point to population actually starting to decline in the next fifty years, and in the end how can you not atleast have a growing GDP per cap with a declining population?

 

[Ayatollah So]

I don't think economic growth necessarily means "more stuff". It could just mean better stuff. There needn't be more massive houses and cars and so on, just better ones. Consider computers and software. It's pretty easy to imagine that future computers will become smaller and smaller, while becoming better and better.

 

[gallego]

What if for instance we dont leave this planet soon enough, and the ill effects of perpetual growth get us first? The Earth is after all a finite system. Theres no guarantee that our economic model will save us before it dooms us, is there?

We don't really have a choice. What force is going to force people to stop growing economically for the sake of the planet? You can either install a global environmental dictatorshp, or we can wait for the environment to degrade sufficiently as to affect people enough to act. But by then it will probably be too late. We just have to hope that the technological push that exists now can make enough progress to save us in time.

Social theorists talk about a stable-state economy in which people are well enough off and dedicate their time to more intellectual pursuits than economic growth, but that would require some fundamental rewiring of human beings.

 

[Narz]

I don't think economic growth necessarily means "more stuff". It could just mean better stuff.

I'm not sure. I'll wait for an economist to chime in.