3 ms·

One relatively new thought in the manifesto is the explicit disagreement with the old assertion that the finite resources of our planet cannot sustain continued

by avz 11y ago

One relatively new thought in the manifesto is the explicit disagreement with the old assertion that the finite resources of our planet cannot sustain continued economic growth. The fundamental reason why economic growth can continue at a fixed or even shrinking environmental footprint is that economic growth and environmental footprint measure different things. The former measures the creation of economic value while the latter measures the use of land and raw materials necessary to create that value. More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to produce one dollar of GDP than it used to. At the same time, more and more of the raw materials are reused via down-, re- or even up-cycling. In theory, a very sophisticated economy of a demographically stable society could thrive and grow entirely on a closed cycle of raw materials and fixed amount of land. Even if we don't get there we could still reduce our impact below environment's capacity for self-renewal. I think we must urgently stop the increase and soon begin shrinking our environmental footprint. The realization that there is no fundamental contradiction between continued economic growth (and all its perks including poverty reduction, scientific progress and continued human development) and the protection of our planet should highlight that this ambition is achievable.

stillsut 11y ago
Well for the U.S., agricultural production went from 90% of the population in 1860 to < 2% today. And we net export food. In developing countries, you're most likely to suffer a famine if you're a farmer. We can save the people, save the land, and grow the economy if we do this the right way. But it starts with acknowledging the fact that agriculture/ general "living off the land" as an individual is unsustainable with today's growth rates.
stevetrewick 11y ago
>More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to produce one dollar of GDP than it used to. Very much this. It isn't, however, a new insight to economics. That the limits to growth argument is a fallacy based on conflating increased value with increased resource use is standard economics but misunderstood by almost everyone else, hence the trend for physicists to write blog posts calling down derp on econ types. This is explored by Tim Harford in a piece on Freakonomics [0]. I would highly recommend Harford's book The Undercover Economist to anyone with even a passing interest in the field. It's one of those humbling books which demonstrates that everything you thought you knew about a subject was basically wrong. [0]http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course/ http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-conti...
skybrian 11y ago
Raw materials and energy need to be expensive or we will over-use them. That puts limits on how large the rest of the economy can be by comparison. On the other side, intangible things like music and entertainment are much easier to make cheaper or even free. If we can reduce the price to near zero then that limits how large a part of the economy they can be. For more about this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-gro...
mrow84 11y ago
Something that is surely implicit in the claim that the limits on economic growth are not related to physical resource limits, is some definition of the minimum quantity of stuff, and perhaps of the types of stuff, that are required to make this possible. I find it relatively easy to imagine that there is some quantity of material that would allow a group of people to exist in an approximately steady state economy, with economic value being consumed roughly at the rate at which it is produced (i.e. zero growth). However, it is not clear to me that there is fixed quantity above which one can achieve continued (i.e. unbounded) economic growth. This seems to imply that it is possible to come up with infinitely many, increasingly useful, ways of using the same stuff. Is it possible to achieve continued economic growth in an empty room?

by avz 11y ago

stillsut 11y ago

Well for the U.S., agricultural production went from 90% of the population in 1860 to < 2% today. And we net export food. In developing countries, you're most likely to suffer a famine if you're a farmer. We can save the people, save the land, and grow the economy if we do this the right way. But it starts with acknowledging the fact that agriculture/ general "living off the land" as an individual is unsustainable with today's growth rates.

stevetrewick 11y ago

>More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to produce one dollar of GDP than it used to. Very much this. It isn't, however, a new insight to economics. That the limits to growth argument is a fallacy based on conflating increased value with increased resource use is standard economics but misunderstood by almost everyone else, hence the trend for physicists to write blog posts calling down derp on econ types. This is explored by Tim Harford in a piece on Freakonomics [0]. I would highly recommend Harford's book The Undercover Economist to anyone with even a passing interest in the field. It's one of those humbling books which demonstrates that everything you thought you knew about a subject was basically wrong. [0]http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course/ http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-conti...

skybrian 11y ago

Raw materials and energy need to be expensive or we will over-use them. That puts limits on how large the rest of the economy can be by comparison. On the other side, intangible things like music and entertainment are much easier to make cheaper or even free. If we can reduce the price to near zero then that limits how large a part of the economy they can be. For more about this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-gro...

mrow84 11y ago

Something that is surely implicit in the claim that the limits on economic growth are not related to physical resource limits, is some definition of the minimum quantity of stuff, and perhaps of the types of stuff, that are required to make this possible. I find it relatively easy to imagine that there is some quantity of material that would allow a group of people to exist in an approximately steady state economy, with economic value being consumed roughly at the rate at which it is produced (i.e. zero growth). However, it is not clear to me that there is fixed quantity above which one can achieve continued (i.e. unbounded) economic growth. This seems to imply that it is possible to come up with infinitely many, increasingly useful, ways of using the same stuff. Is it possible to achieve continued economic growth in an empty room?