3 ms·

While your point is true on a basic level, I think The parent’s point is on to something. There must be a level of economic production that falls below the lev

While your point is true on a basic level, I think The parent’s point is on to something. There must be a level of economic production that falls below the level of emission that can be absorbed without contributing to climate change. Furthermore in <1billion years everything on earth dies anyway (due to an expanding, ageing, sun) - so it is sustainable to use <1billionth of non-renewable resources.

qsymmachus 7y ago
> There must be a level of economic production that falls below the level of emission that can be absorbed without contributing to climate change You're right, there absolutely is such a level. The important point is that to stay at or below that level, you have to give up on the idea of perpetual, infinite growth. The inputs and outputs must remain constant. My point was that there's no such thing as "immaterial" growth, so we can't escape this limitation by making a bunch of apps forever.
- josinalvo 7y ago
  Without growth above the population growth, life becomes zero sum or negative sum. That means that taking and fighting becomes more rewarding than building. It is either growth or war, no way around it.
  - BoiledCabbage 7y ago
    Or simply reach peak population growth which is a common occurrence on the small scale. With population at a steady state, there is nothing GDP needs to outgrow.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Except interest rates. Things would be nicer if our economy didn't depend on paying back interest with economic growth.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        Why would a business need the loan in the first place if it doesn't expect a return?
    - josinalvo 7y ago
      If population is steady,GDP still must grow. Otherwise, most of the people who get ahead/gain a better life will do so at the expense of another. That is not a nice world to live in.
- seibelj 7y ago
  There is indeed perpetual growth. As long as the economic transaction benefits both of us, as all non-coercive economic transactions are, then the result is net-positive. This is why free trade is a good thing - we decide to trade because it benefits both of us. If trading resulted in a loss for one of us, we wouldn't trade.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    To have economic growth, you have to actually grow the amount of trade being done. Can't see how you could do that forever - despite the best efforts of advertisers and companies engaging in planned obsolescence, who are largely responsible for the climate shitshow, people will at some point hit a consumption limit. You can play accounting tricks on GDP to some extent, but I'm not convinced this is enough. If value becomes completely detached from reality, people may lose faith in money, and the whole thing will just crash and burn.

qsymmachus 7y ago

> There must be a level of economic production that falls below the level of emission that can be absorbed without contributing to climate change You're right, there absolutely is such a level. The important point is that to stay at or below that level, you have to give up on the idea of perpetual, infinite growth. The inputs and outputs must remain constant. My point was that there's no such thing as "immaterial" growth, so we can't escape this limitation by making a bunch of apps forever.

josinalvo 7y ago
Without growth above the population growth, life becomes zero sum or negative sum. That means that taking and fighting becomes more rewarding than building. It is either growth or war, no way around it.
- BoiledCabbage 7y ago
  Or simply reach peak population growth which is a common occurrence on the small scale. With population at a steady state, there is nothing GDP needs to outgrow.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Except interest rates. Things would be nicer if our economy didn't depend on paying back interest with economic growth.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      Why would a business need the loan in the first place if it doesn't expect a return?
  - josinalvo 7y ago
    If population is steady,GDP still must grow. Otherwise, most of the people who get ahead/gain a better life will do so at the expense of another. That is not a nice world to live in.
seibelj 7y ago
There is indeed perpetual growth. As long as the economic transaction benefits both of us, as all non-coercive economic transactions are, then the result is net-positive. This is why free trade is a good thing - we decide to trade because it benefits both of us. If trading resulted in a loss for one of us, we wouldn't trade.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  To have economic growth, you have to actually grow the amount of trade being done. Can't see how you could do that forever - despite the best efforts of advertisers and companies engaging in planned obsolescence, who are largely responsible for the climate shitshow, people will at some point hit a consumption limit. You can play accounting tricks on GDP to some extent, but I'm not convinced this is enough. If value becomes completely detached from reality, people may lose faith in money, and the whole thing will just crash and burn.