TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Infinite growth
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Infinite growth

Maybe this discussion has been done before, or maybe it's just a stupid question, but how do you feel about economic growth? Is it the right way for a country to pursue an infinite growth of its economy in a world of clearly finite resources and capacity? How can it be that an absence of growth already forms a huge crisis? Is it the right way to try and force this process by ever increasing debts? Are there alternatives leading to stability and what are they? Or would trying to go another way just lead to failure and more poverty as growth is indispensable?

I was hoping someone could provide some valueable insight or links about these topics.

Growth is life. It is a natural process that doesn't need to be "forced" by anything. And I don't think the world has finite "capacity". Perhaps we do have a limited amount of oil..but we will move beyond the need of it one day. Having a climate of free thought and competition leads to growth..and growth will eventually lead to the innovations we need to survive over the coming centuries. I really don't see what the alternative is.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt And I don't think the world has finite "capacity". Perhaps we do have a limited amount of oil..but we will move beyond the need of it one day.

But that's clearly not true. Read for example Meadows, Randers - "The Limits to Growth". It's not just the need for oil, but the constant growth of the population, the planet's capacity to absorp pollution, sustainably produce food, etc. Technological advances can push those limits to some extend, but it won't be able to do all things at once. With the rapid growth of population and the increasing demand for resources from countries like India and China mere technological advange will not be sufficient to keep the situation stable and managable.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Growth is life. It is a natural process that doesn't need to be "forced" by anything.

Just think of the typical example in a geosystem where one species eats another one. While both will try to grow te actual natural process is the control of this process towards stability. When there are more prey animals, the number or predators will increase, hunt down more of them, and eventually decline in number again for lack of food. Infinite growth is not a natural process, stability is.

I think technology will be our saviour in that aspect. Currently, a lot of companies are trying to make profit by using financial gimmicks, and a lot of welfare is based on money which doesn't really exist, which it doesn't represent anything in reality. So we spend money we made with *nothing* and spend it on something real. This does not benefit the world in any way, it's creation of the well-known bubbles and caused by short-term view. The only way we can increase our welfare (which is one of the basic rules of our economy: we want to increase our welfare) for real will be by technological advances that will enable us to live luxurious in an efficient and sustainable manner.

Things will reach a natural equilibrium over time.. They always do. Obviously if we run out of food, growth will temporarily stop until we increase our productive capacity. The good ole biological leash will kick in eventually and force us to a sustainable growth rate...It's basic Darwinism. There is no reason to artificially "plan" for this and impose large scale controls ahead of time. Any attempt to do this would necessarily be authoritarian in nature and ironically I think would become a self fulfilling prophecy. Freedom unleashes the imagination and productive capacity of mankind, while all methods of central planning and control naturally crush the human spirit and destroy the incentive to grow knowledge and improve methods of production. Any attempts to force "sustainability" on humanity using the coercive power of the state would be inherently anti-life..and much more damaging than if we allowed nature to take its course.

The human species is very susceptible to natural equilibrium. We are not apart from the ecosystem as much as we like to think of ourselves that way. But something does set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom which allows for our seemingly infinite growth. We can control our environment. Our technology allows for us to turn huge plots of land into highly productive fields of crops and pasture to feed our ever expanding population. Our growth as lead to detrimental effects on the ecosystem much like a locust plague in some ways. Agent Smith laid it down:

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? �A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."

The preeminent problem to our growth is how do we integrate this growth into a natural equilibrium with the natural ecosystem. So far that is the "going green" movement that's taken hold mostly in Europe. Of course much more needs to be done and it will take a long time, but I think we will eventually establish a natural equilibrium with the ecosystem. One day. Humans are extremely adaptable even in the face of disaster so if there were to be natural disasters as a result of our alteration of the biosphere, we would quickly innovate to remedy the problem, as a simple matter of survival of the species.

Of course an equilibrium will be reached without taking any action towards it, but the big question is in what way we'll reach it. When we massive shoot over the natural limits with our obsession with infinite growth then mankind will be brought down pretty hard and most likely land at a "lower" equilibrium since some resources may be irreversibly destroyed. That is the reason why action should be taken beforehand.
What I find somewhat striking is how a stable state, something very natural, seems not to be a part of western economy. An absence of growth is a huge crisis already, like a 3% GDP increase per year is required to keep things in order. Why is that so, and does it have be like that?

And lol at Agent Smith.

I think we do need sustained growth. The human population is ever growing which entails a need for more jobs and products/services for those new workers to spend on. Most importantly, in order to technologically reach equilibrium with our natural environment, we need to innovate, which costs enormous sums of money. That money must be obtained from some other productive process which would imply a need for an economy in which investment returns satisfactory returns; a growing economy.

Meh, that Agent Smith quote is sort true don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 But that's clearly not true.

But it is...
Care to guess what the elimination of the carburetor and the creation of fuel injection did for the world?
How about solar panels?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Things will reach a natural equilibrium over time.. They always do. Obviously if we run out of food, growth will temporarily stop until we increase our productive capacity. The good ole biological leash will kick in eventually and force us to a sustainable growth rate...It's basic Darwinism. There is no reason to artificially "plan" for this and impose large scale controls ahead of time. Any attempt to do this would necessarily be authoritarian in nature and ironically I think would become a self fulfilling prophecy. Freedom unleashes the imagination and productive capacity of mankind, while all methods of central planning and control naturally crush the human spirit and destroy the incentive to grow knowledge and improve methods of production. Any attempts to force "sustainability" on humanity using the coercive power of the state would be inherently anti-life..and much more damaging than if we allowed nature to take its course.

lol @ how you can turn any reasonable question into an answer about the right of capitalists to rape and pillage the world

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Care to guess what the elimination of the carburetor and the creation of fuel injection did for the world?

i know it sure as hell didn't create a new way of fuelling our vehicles.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r How about solar panels?

...and coal still remains the #1 energy source on the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But it is...

of course there is a finite capacity to some aspects to our technology or growth on this planet. global warming is but one example of there being an obvious limit to how much carbon we can pump into the atmosphere.

i do not find capitalizt's pie in the sky optimism to be all that compelling since an energy crisis has made all the headlines but nobody has come close to providing a solution, so im rather perplexed by his "future tech will solve all our problems" attitude.

Necessity is the mother of invention pk. We don't have a real necessity for alternatives to oil and natural gas yet.. Once supply starts to dry up and prices soar in response, you can bet those evil capitalists will start churning out alternate technology.

Don't worry pkc, the world isn't destroyed yet. Once we finish destroying the world, then capitalists will feel the necessity to innovate.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Necessity is the mother of invention pk. We don't have a real necessity for alternatives to oil and natural gas yet.. Once supply starts to dry up and prices soar in response, you can bet those evil capitalists will start churning out alternate technology.

I have a feeling you underestimate the speed of exponential growth. In the book I cited there's a nice example about that:
Imagine you have a pond and there's a small water lily growing in it. Now the lily doubles it's size every day and you don't want it to spread over the entire pond, because that'll kill all your fish or whatever. What you're saying sounds like "I'll take care of the lily when it covers more than half of the lake, no need to address a minor problem earlier. After all it's only a very tiny lily for the first couple of weeks." But that means you have only one day to react, because it'll double the next one.
Now coming back to oil and energy, waiting until supplies end is waiting too long, because the growth of its usage is fast. The solution to this particular subproblem (oil, fuel) must be ready and running before we see the first hint of a problem with oil supplies, or else shit will get pretty wild imho.
It is by the way this very way of thinking and underestimating population- and consumption growth that makes me quite pessimistic. Reacting fast and timely hasn't exactly been a strength of politics so far.

population growth = 1-2% a year. There won't be a catastrophe that suddenly rushes up on us. We will have plenty of time to see it coming and adjust. Relax buddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 I have a feeling you underestimate the speed of exponential growth. In the book I cited there's a nice example about that: Imagine you have a pond and there's a small water lily growing in it. Now the lily doubles it's size every day and you don't want it to spread over the entire pond, because that'll kill all your fish or whatever. What you're saying sounds like "I'll take care of the lily when it covers more than half of the lake, no need to address a minor problem earlier. After all it's only a very tiny lily for the first couple of weeks." But that means you have only one day to react, because it'll double the next one. Now coming back to oil and energy, waiting until supplies end is waiting too long, because the growth of its usage is fast. The solution to this particular subproblem (oil, fuel) must be ready and running before we see the first hint of a problem with oil supplies, or else shit will get pretty wild imho. It is by the way this very way of thinking and underestimating population- and consumption growth that makes me quite pessimistic. Reacting fast and timely hasn't exactly been a strength of politics so far.

But that would be communism!!1

Re: Re: Infinite growth

quote:

Originally posted by ******** there also needs to be a seperation of bank and state. Let trade regulate itself.. but that will never happen in the US. Because one of the purposes arguably the largest purpose of the US is to regulate commerce and trade. IMO though this is overstepping the ideal role of government, as a protector of the individuals rights by insuring liberty.

right. so you think banks should remain regulation-free in order to be free to cause global economic collapses then?

quote:

Sort of.. I think values will be set by people anyway. Fact is though when only a handful of people control the prices because they are ultrarich and supply all the main goods

Lol, you�ve got to grow out of your conspiratorial mindset about how the world works. Yes, there are cases of what you describe, but they are hardly emblematic of the system as a whole. prices are determined by lots of factors, not the least of which is the activity of the consumer.

Advocating no regulations for "Wall Street", i.e. banks, is like advocating no traffic laws for the roads. After all, we need "free traffic".

quote:

Originally posted by ******** but I think people should be able to set their own prices, set up monopolies, or say how much a dollar is worth.

um, people ARE able to set their own prices or say how much a dollar is worth

quote:

Originally posted by ******** exactly! Makes for better drivers.. makes for a better economy.

Makes for lots of dead people and an oligarchy of an economy.

quote:

I do think there should be regulating laws to protect society from abuse. Eg. Things like fraud would still be illegal, much like dumping a barrel of toxic waste in the water supply would be illegal.

How about a financial institution becoming so big that its failure would destroy the financial system?

quote:

but I think people should be able to set their own prices, or say how much a dollar is worth.

Isn't that what the market does?

quote:

set up monopolies,

Which is the natural outcome of unrestrained capitalism, or rather, coercive monopolies. I have a feeling you really don't truly know the results of a coercive monopoly, otherwise you wouldn't be okay with their existence. Luckily, countries in the EU and USA, have anti-trust laws to prevent such exploitation.

quote:

People who trust someone with their money and then that person gives it to someone else should realize there is risk involved, not come crying to the government when they don't get it back. The least it would be is fruad or someone who knowingly took a risk and lost. Government shouldn't be there to bail these people out. And I personally know people who lost a lot due to the market collapse. So I know how hard it hits them and how it effects not only their lives now but their future. Fact is though the government really doesn't do anything to help, on the contrary it gives grounds for some of these banks to comit what would otherwise be fraud, and that isn't right. While I think they should be able to operate freely where not criminal..

Would be true for the average Joe or even a millionaire, but when an institution with over $1 trillion in assets and liabilities is about to go insolvent, yes they cry to the government, and yes we better bail them out because basically they have a financial gun pointed to our head. The remedy to this situation isn't to get rid of all the rules.

quote:

I don't think there is a need to regulate these industries beyond the law of the citizen equal and free in equality.

Obviously this is nonsense, a form of anarcho-capitalism. No less idealistic than Stalinist communism.

quote:

All men are created equal and so should their businesses.

This is a fundamental problem of capitalism. Corporations are viewed by law as "people". "People" with far more wealth, of which can buy influence, than any one real person could ever have. It just simply isn't fair, and results in a government beholden to corporations rather than the electorate.

I love how people who complain about monopolies always have a solution that involves giving more power and influence to the ultimate monopoly..the only entity with a true legal right to use coercion, force, fraud, and physical violence.

So apparently, you have no problem with coercive monopolies?

coercion implies the threat of violence krypt. What institution has the legal monopoly on this? Market monopolies don't become coercive until they buy politicians. Your anger should be focused on a government that can be bought...a government big enough to grant favors and subsidies to some groups at the expense of others. If politicians were tied and bound with the chains of the constitution, there would be little point in companies trying to buy them would there?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt coercion implies the threat of violence krypt. What institution has the legal monopoly on this? Market monopolies don't become coercive until they buy politicians. Your anger should be focused on a government that can be bought...a government big enough to grant favors and subsidies to some groups at the expense of others. If politicians were tied and bound with the chains of the constitution, there would be little point in companies trying to buy them would there?

For all your talk about competition, isn't a little hypocritical for you to disregard an obvious result of unregulated capitalism, allowing monopolies which crowd out all other competitors, raise prices, make unnatural profits, etc.

I don't care how good a government is, it can still be bought off. Which goes back to my problem with the "personhood" of corporations. You blaming government for the failures of capitalism is like blaming the police for you getting into a car accident because you were drunk. Their only fault is not catching you before you crashed.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.