3 ms·

An unlimited growth in a finite environment isn't possible Even limited 'growth' has not actually happened. It's a fiction. The physical reality is that comple

An unlimited growth in a finite environment isn't possible Even limited 'growth' has not actually happened. It's a fiction. The physical reality is that complex sustainable evolved systems have been broken down to feed simpler crude unsustainable techological ones. There's no 'growth' to be seen - just an increase in planetary entropy. This is somewhat masked on a short-term & local scale because of the remarkable resilience of the evolved systems. But as those systems collapse, which now seems inevitable, the fictional nature of 'economic growth' will become very evident indeed.

ebalit 7y ago
I don't like this argument as it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Life on earth is only possible because we're receiving a constant flow of energy from the sun. Surely, we should not expect exponential growth, but it doesn't mean we could not have unlimited growth.
- crispinb 7y ago
  > it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system How so? It's not an argument per se - it's just a description of the physical reality that what economists falsely describe as 'growth' is actually a transfer of matter and energy from complex evolved sustainable systems (ie. what some people call 'nature', which I find to be misleading) to simple cultural-technological unsustainable systems. This transfer process damages the former to build the latter, increasing entropy (because our early-stage human tech is less ordered than evolved systems are). It is not 'growth' in any meaningful sense of the term at all, whether limited or unlimited.
lioeters 7y ago
Interesting point, that economic growth is a fiction - when the cost of growth is the deterioration of our own living environment, which is the true source of value. In fact, I'd posit that we do not even have the ability to produce "true value", we only know how to transform and consume it - perhaps in the same way that we're unable to "create energy" out of nothing. But then again.. Growth in general is all about consuming our surroundings, transforming the elements into new organizations, leaving waste behind. Apparently, the main measure of economic growth is the gross domestic product - "the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced", which is based on spending and consumption. Planetary entropy, as you say. As someone else commented in this thread, what we need is a significant global shift in mentality and culture, our value systems and vision of what it means to be a grown-up civilization, not as an ever-hungry consumer, but an intelligent layer of nature.
- crispinb 7y ago
  > what we need is a significant global shift in mentality and culture Agreed, though whether we have time for this to happen seems doubtful. It would require a dramatic slowdown of faux-growth to enable natural systems to recover, while we spend the time needed (probably centuries) to develop tech with sustainability approaching that of evolved systems. There's no a priori technical reason why this should not be possible, but political realities make it hard to imagine. Maybe another 'intelligent' species can make this happen in a few millennia.

ebalit 7y ago

I don't like this argument as it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Life on earth is only possible because we're receiving a constant flow of energy from the sun. Surely, we should not expect exponential growth, but it doesn't mean we could not have unlimited growth.

crispinb 7y ago
> it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system How so? It's not an argument per se - it's just a description of the physical reality that what economists falsely describe as 'growth' is actually a transfer of matter and energy from complex evolved sustainable systems (ie. what some people call 'nature', which I find to be misleading) to simple cultural-technological unsustainable systems. This transfer process damages the former to build the latter, increasing entropy (because our early-stage human tech is less ordered than evolved systems are). It is not 'growth' in any meaningful sense of the term at all, whether limited or unlimited.

lioeters 7y ago

Interesting point, that economic growth is a fiction - when the cost of growth is the deterioration of our own living environment, which is the true source of value. In fact, I'd posit that we do not even have the ability to produce "true value", we only know how to transform and consume it - perhaps in the same way that we're unable to "create energy" out of nothing. But then again.. Growth in general is all about consuming our surroundings, transforming the elements into new organizations, leaving waste behind. Apparently, the main measure of economic growth is the gross domestic product - "the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced", which is based on spending and consumption. Planetary entropy, as you say. As someone else commented in this thread, what we need is a significant global shift in mentality and culture, our value systems and vision of what it means to be a grown-up civilization, not as an ever-hungry consumer, but an intelligent layer of nature.

crispinb 7y ago
> what we need is a significant global shift in mentality and culture Agreed, though whether we have time for this to happen seems doubtful. It would require a dramatic slowdown of faux-growth to enable natural systems to recover, while we spend the time needed (probably centuries) to develop tech with sustainability approaching that of evolved systems. There's no a priori technical reason why this should not be possible, but political realities make it hard to imagine. Maybe another 'intelligent' species can make this happen in a few millennia.