3 ms·

Anti Growth is not necessarily a bad argument, just a long term view argument. Growth requires work and that requires energy. There is a limit of energy we can

Anti Growth is not necessarily a bad argument, just a long term view argument. Growth requires work and that requires energy. There is a limit of energy we can use. At certain point we will use more energy than earth can cool off. An economic growth of 2% every year is unsustainable long term. There is a parable story called "Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist" that tries to go into this further. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

ThomPete 8y ago
Anti growth is propably the worst argument. It will litterally give you the effects of the most catastrophic interpretation of climate change before it has even happened. You don't want to halt growth, that would surely be suicide. What you want to do is to be better at using things we have already found ways to turn into resources or turn things that aren't currently resources into resources. That requires growth because it requires the capital to invest. It's not like earth gives us resources, we have to find ways to turn them into resources such as oil uranium etc. If you don't grow you will live in a world that might as well be the catastrophe. I am not going to be supporting that.
- adamzochowski 8y ago
  > Anti growth is propably the worst argument. It will litterally give you the effects of the most catastrophic interpretation of climate change before it has even happened. How literally? > You don't want to halt growth, that would surely be suicide. How surely suicide? > or turn things that aren't currently resources into resources So the solution to humanity using too much energy is to expand more energy to use up more of the resources? > It's not like earth gives us resources, we have to find ways to turn them into resources such as oil uranium etc Seriously, we only have resources from earth, and energy from the sun (some volcanic / thermal). Where else do we get the resources from? Moon? All resources we have are dug from earth, and refined by using energy. > If you don't grow you will live in a world that might as well be the catastrophe. I am not going to be supporting that. Again, I am talking here about long term view, like next few centuries. For how long can we sustain same growth rate as we did last 200 years? How long before something gives? This is irrelevant to global warming, we just can't have indefinite 2% growth. Period. There are some things that we can do to stave off problems for a few centuries: 1) less wasteful food production, currently humans+cows+pigs represent 96% of all mammalian biomass, 40% of grain produced is fed to livestock -- solution: meat grown in test tubes and vats, this should release some of wasted land on agriculture back to wilderness. 2) proper atom cycle, currently we destroy environment to get atoms (say cut forest / dig metal), and then destroy environment to hide them (landfills) -- solution: Complete recycling of all we use as either composting and fertilizing or back to re-manufacturing 3) finding ways to use energy without generating heat on earth -- solution: space robots with large surface areas that allow them to cool, and do work. All of these are things we can do, but they are short gap solution. A century or two at best. Seriously, take a calculator and tell me, how many years is 2% growth sustainable for before we are counting individual atoms on earth?
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Earth dont have a finite amount of resources, we invent ways to turn things into resources, you have the order on the head. We arent using too much, this is a nonsensical statement, by that metric all we can do is extend the inevitable resource depletion of earth which means we might as well use it now for the people who are alive today including all the poor countries who need cheap and reliable energy to survive.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Growth requires work and that requires energy No it doesn't. "Energy intensity...is calculated as units of energy per unit of GDP" [1]. It fell nearly 1/3 from 1990 to 2015 [2]. Growth is a measure on value. Value is subjective. It is not intrinsically linked to material or energy use. (For example, modern computers use far less energy and material than older computers while delivering far more value. More extremely, consider many purely-digital goods.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity [2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032
- adamzochowski 8y ago
  I am not sure which part of the statement you highlighted you asserted is wrong? That: a) Growth doesn't require work? b) Work doesn't require energy? From what you included, since 1980 to 2016, energy usage has doubled, from 281btu to 572btu [1]. Yes, we can become more efficient with the energy we use, but we still use energy, and we still use more of it. If we can use energy without generating heat, then we are good. Additionally, dangerous part is that, as we are more efficient, we find new use of resource that gobbles up the efficiency gains. [2] [1] https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&ug=4&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&end=2016 https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=410... (scroll down to chart to see world consumption) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

ThomPete 8y ago

Anti growth is propably the worst argument. It will litterally give you the effects of the most catastrophic interpretation of climate change before it has even happened. You don't want to halt growth, that would surely be suicide. What you want to do is to be better at using things we have already found ways to turn into resources or turn things that aren't currently resources into resources. That requires growth because it requires the capital to invest. It's not like earth gives us resources, we have to find ways to turn them into resources such as oil uranium etc. If you don't grow you will live in a world that might as well be the catastrophe. I am not going to be supporting that.

adamzochowski 8y ago
> Anti growth is propably the worst argument. It will litterally give you the effects of the most catastrophic interpretation of climate change before it has even happened. How literally? > You don't want to halt growth, that would surely be suicide. How surely suicide? > or turn things that aren't currently resources into resources So the solution to humanity using too much energy is to expand more energy to use up more of the resources? > It's not like earth gives us resources, we have to find ways to turn them into resources such as oil uranium etc Seriously, we only have resources from earth, and energy from the sun (some volcanic / thermal). Where else do we get the resources from? Moon? All resources we have are dug from earth, and refined by using energy. > If you don't grow you will live in a world that might as well be the catastrophe. I am not going to be supporting that. Again, I am talking here about long term view, like next few centuries. For how long can we sustain same growth rate as we did last 200 years? How long before something gives? This is irrelevant to global warming, we just can't have indefinite 2% growth. Period. There are some things that we can do to stave off problems for a few centuries: 1) less wasteful food production, currently humans+cows+pigs represent 96% of all mammalian biomass, 40% of grain produced is fed to livestock -- solution: meat grown in test tubes and vats, this should release some of wasted land on agriculture back to wilderness. 2) proper atom cycle, currently we destroy environment to get atoms (say cut forest / dig metal), and then destroy environment to hide them (landfills) -- solution: Complete recycling of all we use as either composting and fertilizing or back to re-manufacturing 3) finding ways to use energy without generating heat on earth -- solution: space robots with large surface areas that allow them to cool, and do work. All of these are things we can do, but they are short gap solution. A century or two at best. Seriously, take a calculator and tell me, how many years is 2% growth sustainable for before we are counting individual atoms on earth?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Earth dont have a finite amount of resources, we invent ways to turn things into resources, you have the order on the head. We arent using too much, this is a nonsensical statement, by that metric all we can do is extend the inevitable resource depletion of earth which means we might as well use it now for the people who are alive today including all the poor countries who need cheap and reliable energy to survive.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Growth requires work and that requires energy No it doesn't. "Energy intensity...is calculated as units of energy per unit of GDP" [1]. It fell nearly 1/3 from 1990 to 2015 [2]. Growth is a measure on value. Value is subjective. It is not intrinsically linked to material or energy use. (For example, modern computers use far less energy and material than older computers while delivering far more value. More extremely, consider many purely-digital goods.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity [2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27032

adamzochowski 8y ago
I am not sure which part of the statement you highlighted you asserted is wrong? That: a) Growth doesn't require work? b) Work doesn't require energy? From what you included, since 1980 to 2016, energy usage has doubled, from 281btu to 572btu [1]. Yes, we can become more efficient with the energy we use, but we still use energy, and we still use more of it. If we can use energy without generating heat, then we are good. Additionally, dangerous part is that, as we are more efficient, we find new use of resource that gobbles up the efficiency gains. [2] [1] https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&ug=4&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&end=2016 https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=410... (scroll down to chart to see world consumption) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox