No, it cannot. Tom Murphy is an excellent source. Those interested in further reading may want to look at: Meadows et al, Limits to Growth, and its follow-ups. The beginning of the modern limits...
No, it cannot.
Tom Murphy is an excellent source.
Those interested in further reading may want to look at:
Meadows et al, Limits to Growth, and its follow-ups. The beginning of the modern limits discussion. Online copy.
William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. The first part is an elegant and concise argument and explanation of the Limits to Growth thesis, the second an exploratiion of the political implications. Written in the 1970s, many of its projections have been born out quite accurately. Includes an excellent bibliography.
Catton suggests that we cannot stop the tidal wave of growth - for we have already overshot the Earth's capacity to support so huge a load. He contradicts those scientists, engineers, and technocrats who continue to write optimistically about energy alternatives. Catton asserts that the technological panaceas proposed by those who would harvest from the seas, harness the winds, and farm the deserts are ignoring the fundamental premise that "the principals of ecology apply to all living things." These principles tell us that, within a finite system, economic expansion is not irreversible and population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If we disregard these facts, our sagging American Dream will soon shatter completely. UIP.
[S]ocieties become more complex as they try to solve problems. Social complexity can be recognized by numerous differentiated and specialised social and economic roles and many mechanisms through which they are coordinated, and by reliance on symbolic and abstract communication, and the existence of a class of information producers and analysts who are not involved in primary resource production. Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning the consumption of resources, or other forms of wealth). Wikipedia.
This book employs the comparative method to understand societal collapses to which environmental problems contribute. ... I compare many past and present societies that differed with respect to environmental fragility, relations with neighbors, political institutions, and other "input" variables postulated to influence a society's stability. The "output" variables that I examine are collapse or survival, and form of the collapse if collapse does occur. Prologue, via Wikipedia.
Daniel Yergin, The Prize. A masterwork history of oil by a true believer, but one which also conveys just how transformative peetroleum was in making the moderrn world.
Big History is an academic discipline which examines history from the Big Bang to the present. Big History resists specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends. It examines long time frames using a multidisciplinary approach based on combining numerous disciplines from science and the humanities, and explores human existence in the context of this bigger picture. It integrates studies of the cosmos, Earth, life, and humanity using empirical evidence to explore cause-and-effect relations. Wikipedia
The discussion in the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal reminded me of this old blog post which I'm not sure if it has been previously discussed. It examines the potential for continued economic...
The discussion in the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal reminded me of this old blog post which I'm not sure if it has been previously discussed. It examines the potential for continued economic growth from the lens of physical limitations on energy production increases. Now, the author is a physicist not an ecomist so I'd be keen to see if this argument (that seems plausible to me) has been debunked in some way.
I find the analysis of the non-energy future economy kind of hand-wavey. I don't think very low wages for farmers quite follows here; the model could just be telling us that we will have a lot...
I find the analysis of the non-energy future economy kind of hand-wavey.
For instance, if food production shrinks to 1% of our economy, while staying at a comparable absolute scale as it is today (we must eat, after all), then food is effectively very cheap relative to the paychecks that let us enjoy the fruits of the broader economy. This would mean that farmers’ wages would sink far lower than they are today relative to other members of society, so they could not enjoy the innovations and improvements the rest of us can pay for. Subsidies, donations, or any other mechanism to compensate farmers more handsomely would simply undercut the “other” economy, preventing it from swelling to arbitrary size—and thus limiting growth.
I don't think very low wages for farmers quite follows here; the model could just be telling us that we will have a lot fewer farmers and/or a lot more robots.
And I don't see how farm subsidies would "undercut" the rest of the economy; you can tax an arbitrarily expanding fremium app hellscape non-energy economy at 5% and it can still expand arbitrarily.
Overall I think the general thrust of the article is right: we can't have actually infinite economic growth on one little planet with a vaguely constant number of people. Maybe we can all be millionaires who can trivially afford food, but we can't all be rich enough to employ 100 interns.
But it seems too pessimistic to me. If we've grown the non-energy economy to 90% of the economy and we only need 10% of our incomes for food, clothing, housing, and energy, then it can't much matter if the economy goes haywire when it starts to hit the theoretical growth limits and we experience trouble getting the next additional 1% non-physical economic activity. People who are already sci-fi rich don't need loans, yield-bearing retirement savings, or really even insurance.
No, it cannot.
Tom Murphy is an excellent source.
Those interested in further reading may want to look at:
Meadows et al, Limits to Growth, and its follow-ups. The beginning of the modern limits discussion. Online copy.
William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. The first part is an elegant and concise argument and explanation of the Limits to Growth thesis, the second an exploratiion of the political implications. Written in the 1970s, many of its projections have been born out quite accurately. Includes an excellent bibliography.
William R. Catton, Jr., Overshoot.
Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies.
Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
Daniel Yergin, The Prize. A masterwork history of oil by a true believer, but one which also conveys just how transformative peetroleum was in making the moderrn world.
Vaclav Smil, Energy In World History History told through the lens of energy.
David Christian, Big History.
The discussion in the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal reminded me of this old blog post which I'm not sure if it has been previously discussed. It examines the potential for continued economic growth from the lens of physical limitations on energy production increases. Now, the author is a physicist not an ecomist so I'd be keen to see if this argument (that seems plausible to me) has been debunked in some way.
I find the analysis of the non-energy future economy kind of hand-wavey.
I don't think very low wages for farmers quite follows here; the model could just be telling us that we will have a lot fewer farmers and/or a lot more robots.
And I don't see how farm subsidies would "undercut" the rest of the economy; you can tax an arbitrarily expanding
fremium app hellscapenon-energy economy at 5% and it can still expand arbitrarily.Overall I think the general thrust of the article is right: we can't have actually infinite economic growth on one little planet with a vaguely constant number of people. Maybe we can all be millionaires who can trivially afford food, but we can't all be rich enough to employ 100 interns.
But it seems too pessimistic to me. If we've grown the non-energy economy to 90% of the economy and we only need 10% of our incomes for food, clothing, housing, and energy, then it can't much matter if the economy goes haywire when it starts to hit the theoretical growth limits and we experience trouble getting the next additional 1% non-physical economic activity. People who are already sci-fi rich don't need loans, yield-bearing retirement savings, or really even insurance.