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.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

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.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

Last edited by Meat187 on Oct-25-2009 at 13:30

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.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

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?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

___________________