Why it is no laughing matter

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html?_r=0

"Could the world order survive without growing?

It’s hard to imagine now, but humanity made do with little or no economic growth for thousands of years. In Byzantium and Egypt, income per capita at the end of the first millennium was lower than at the dawn of the Christian Era. Much of Europe experienced no growth at all in the 500 years that preceded the Industrial Revolution. In India, real incomes per person shrank continuously from the early 17th through the late 19th century.

As world leaders gather in Paris to hash out an agreement to hold down and ultimately stop the emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases that threaten to make Earth increasingly inhospitable for humanity, there is a question that is unlikely to be openly discussed at the two-week conclave convened by the United Nations. But it is nonetheless hanging in the air: Could civilization, as we know it, survive such an experience again?

The answer, simply, is no.

Economic growth took off consistently around the world only some 200 years ago. Two things powered it: innovation and lots and lots of carbon-based energy, most of it derived from fossil fuels like coal and petroleum. Staring at climactic upheaval approaching down the decades, environmental advocates, scientists and even some political leaders have put the proposal on the table: World consumption must stop growing.

Whatever the ethical merits of the case, the proposition of no growth has absolutely no chance to succeed. For all the many hundreds of years humanity survived without growth, modern civilization could not. The trade-offs that are the daily stuff of market-based economies simply could not work in a zero-sum world.

“It would be a nonstarter to have zero growth within a given country in terms of creating conflict between groups,” Professor Greenstone told me. “If one were to take this further and make it international, it feels like an even bigger stretch"...............

Let’s examine what our fossil-fueled growth has provided us. It has delivered gains in living standards in even the poorest regions of the world.

But that’s only the beginning. Economic development was indispensable to end slavery. It was a critical precondition for the empowerment of women.

Indeed, democracy would not have survived without it. As Martin Wolf, the Financial Times commentator has noted, the option for everybody to become better off — where one person’s gain needn’t require another’s loss — was critical for the development and spread of the consensual politics that underpin democratic rule.

Zero growth gave us Genghis Khan and the Middle Ages, conquest and subjugation. It fostered an order in which the only mechanism to get ahead was to plunder one’s neighbor. Economic growth opened up a much better alternative: trade."

[jakee 1,594]

Zero growth gave us the Renaissance. Zero growth gave us the Silk Road. Zero growth gave us the discovery of the Americas.

Economic growth gave us the Great War. Economic growth gave us the Great Depression. Economic growth gave us the Second World War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War. Economic growth gave us Iran, Iraq, Al Quaeda and ISIS.

You're right, this is no laughing matter

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

The link was provided so you could read the entire article and not embarrass yourself.

[rushmc 23]

brenthutch

The link was provided so you could read the entire article and not embarrass yourself.

Too late

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,594]

brenthutch

The link was provided so you could read the entire article and not embarrass yourself.

So you have no original thoughts to offer.

Got it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

jakee

***The link was provided so you could read the entire article and not embarrass yourself.

So you have no original thoughts to offer.

Got it.

The article restates what I have been saying for years. You must be new here.

[quade 4]

Quote

"Could the world order survive without growing?"

Define "world order."

THAT is the issue, because the world existed in essentially equilibrium in a number of civilizations for millennium.

The idea that constant and continued growth is even possible in a closed system (our one planet) is silly and foolish to pursue.

We live in a vast, but not infinite, terrarium. It requires balance to continue; not constant "growth."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

quade

Quote

"Could the world order survive without growing?"

Define "world order."

THAT is the issue, because the world existed in essentially equilibrium in a number of civilizations for millennium.

The idea that constant and continued growth is even possible in a closed system (our one planet) is silly and foolish to pursue.

We live in a vast, but not infinite, terrarium. It requires balance to continue; not constant "growth."

Define "balance" don't you mean zero sum?

[gowlerk 2,273]

quade

Quote

"Could the world order survive without growing?"

Define "world order."

THAT is the issue, because the world existed in essentially equilibrium in a number of civilizations for millennium.

The idea that constant and continued growth is even possible in a closed system (our one planet) is silly and foolish to pursue.

We live in a vast, but not infinite, terrarium. It requires balance to continue; not constant "growth."

Indeed, the current system is driven by growth. New frontiers, new technology, and population growth all create the opportunities that point us toward increased production instead of the zero sum game of needing to take from someone else in order to gain.


It is not in our nature to be content to stand still. Those who are not advancing are falling back. If it were not so we would not be the survivors of the evolutionary process that got us to where we are.

It's also clear to me that the era of population growth must end eventually. The stabilization and even stagnation of our society is already happening. It's one of the factors driving the concentration of wealth into the upper tiers of the advanced industrialized countries. Even while globalization is at the same time enriching the lives of some of the people in poorer developing nations.

Where will this lead? Stay tuned, I have no idea. There are just too many possibilities. But at least some of them are positive for at least the medium term and maybe even beyond.

There is likely a time of great social turmoil approaching even if it may be relatively peaceful turmoil.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The article restates what I have been saying for years.

Only so much as you will say anything that justifies not taking any steps to reduce carbon emissions. This is just the latest tack.

Quote

You must be new here.

You must think I was born yesterday.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

brenthutch

Define "balance" don't you mean zero sum?

Not necessarily.

Money, for instance, isn't a zero sum game. It would be if we were playing a game of Monopoly where the actual supply of it were limited, but that's not even remotely the world we live in where fortunes rise and fall simply based on how investors "feel" about something.

Likewise, energy. As long as we think of it remaining a monopoly with say Saudi Arabia in charge of the world market, we're doomed in several ways; the actual product itself an also the pollution it creates. Shift some of that to wind, tide, and solar and we can "balance" out the power a bit as well as off-set some if the negatives of burning oil.

It's the old saying of "everything in moderation."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

gowlerk

peaceful turmoil.

i think that's a great pairing of words - says a lot in just two words

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brenthutch 444]

quade

***Define "balance" don't you mean zero sum?

Not necessarily.

Money, for instance, isn't a zero sum game. It would be if we were playing a game of Monopoly where the actual supply of it were limited, but that's not even remotely the world we live in where fortunes rise and fall simply based on how investors "feel" about something.

Likewise, energy. As long as we think of it remaining a monopoly with say Saudi Arabia in charge of the world market, we're doomed in several ways; the actual product itself an also the pollution it creates. Shift some of that to wind, tide, and solar and we can "balance" out the power a bit as well as off-set some if the negatives of burning oil.

It's the old saying of "everything in moderation."

How is Saudi Arabia a monopoly, when the U.S. is the largest oil producer in the world? I do agree with your notion of balance though. We should balance our record oil production with our record coal and natural gas reserves, an energy triad if you will. This will provide energy security for the next many decades, giving nascent technologies a chance to mature. Premature adaptation is counterproductive.

[wmw999 2,584]

I guess I got two things from the article. One was its concluding sentence, where the author says that the way forward that takes modern society into account is to develop energy technology that isn't as damaging. Is t that what some of the experiments that the more affluent countries (who can afford to make mistakes and experiment) are trying with things like electric cars, wind power, and the like?
Rejecting all change that might cost us in the short term isn't a good growth path. It's the path of continuing to use horses because roads are bad and there are trains; it's the path of who needs a cell phone, and many others. I do think affluent societies owe it to less affluent ones to bear most of the brunt of experimentation. particularly those countries which were colonized and raped by the affluent ones.

A society in cooperative stasis uses less, but it's probably likely to innovate less as well. I'm not as convinced as either you or the author that's a bad thing. Right now the U.S. is suffering in part from too much focus on self, convenience, and leisure. We don't have to actually perform many of the tasks that help us to value the processes of life, or manufacture the things that were so anxious to acquire. So we sit in our specially-built video-gaming chairs, ordering take-out, and then bitching because our insurance is so high.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,110]

Good article.

"It will not be easy, but we can glimpse technological paths that will allow civilization to keep growing and afford the world economy a positive-sum future.

More than how to stop growth, the main question brought out by climate change is how to fully develop and deploy sustainable energy technologies — in a nutshell, to help the world’s poor, and everybody else, onto a path to progress that doesn’t rely on burning buried carbon."

That is indeed the challenge. Fortunately we have made a lot of progress in how to make that happen. From the linked article:

"Within about 15 years every new car sold in the United States will be electric. In fact, by midcentury more than half of the American economy will run on electricity. Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources. And coal’s footprint will shrink drastically, perhaps even disappear from the power supply.

This course, created by a team of energy experts, was unveiled on Tuesday in a report for the United Nations that explores the technological paths available for the world’s 15 main economies to both maintain reasonable rates of growth and cut their carbon emissions enough by 2050 to prevent climatic havoc.

It offers a sobering conclusion. We might be able to pull it off. But it will take an overhaul of the way we use energy, and a huge investment in the development and deployment of new energy technologies."

[brenthutch 444]

From the"good"article:
"it does not do away with the main hitch that has stumped progress for decades: How much will this all cost and who will pay for it?"

Reminds me of a Bloom County strip.
"Teacher: Original ideas? There are no truly original ideas lift in science, Mr Jones.
OWJ: Au contraire! I myselft have an original idea!
Teacher: Original Mr. Jones?
OWJ: 100% original! A first! Truly unique! Allow me to present my findings!
OWJ: The following formula shows conclusively how the entire world's energy needs can be fulfilled with only two porcupines, an exercise wheel, and six tons of "raisin bran". Truly ... an original notion.
OWJ: There! It all adds up!
Teacher: .. Except that porcupines are alergic to raisins.
Teacher: Failure, Mr Jones, is hardly very original. Sit down.
OWJ: The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of an original, beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

[billvon 3,110]

>"it does not do away with the main hitch that has stumped progress for
>decades: How much will this all cost and who will pay for it?"

Very true. Fortunately, we are now taking that question a lot more seriously, and coming up with better answers for it - which is one reason our CO2 emission per capita has been going down since the 1970's. And as the article states, at least we now know how to solve the problem. "For the first time, when we say we can stop the climate from heating we will more or less know what we are talking about."

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>"it does not do away with the main hitch that has stumped progress for
>decades: How much will this all cost and who will pay for it?"

Very true. Fortunately, we are now taking that question a lot more seriously, and coming up with better answers for it - which is one reason our CO2 emission per capita has been going down since the 1970's. And as the article states, at least we now know how to solve the problem. "For the first time, when we say we can stop the climate from heating we will more or less know what we are talking about."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>"it does not do away with the main hitch that has stumped progress for
>decades: How much will this all cost and who will pay for it?"

Very true. Fortunately, we are now taking that question a lot more seriously, and coming up with better answers for it - which is one reason our CO2 emission per capita has been going down since the 1970's. And as the article states, at least we now know how to solve the problem. "For the first time, when we say we can stop the climate from heating we will more or less know what we are talking about."

Then what the heck have you been talking about for the past decade?

[billvon 3,110]

>Then what the heck have you been talking about for the past decade?

If you see some conflict between what I have been saying "for the past decade" vs what I said above - you likely haven't been reading what I have been posting.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

How is Saudi Arabia a monopoly, when the U.S. is the largest oil producer in the world?

I didn't say it was. I was referring to "oil" being essentially the only source of energy for about a hundred years and even though the US may currently (and only very recently) be the largest producer, Saudi Arabia essentially calls the shots on the world market.

If you'd like, you can google the phrase, "who calls the shots on the world oil market?"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

"For the first time....we more or less know what we are talking about"

[brenthutch 444]

quade

***How is Saudi Arabia a monopoly, when the U.S. is the largest oil producer in the world?

I didn't say it was. I was referring to "oil" being essentially the only source of energy for about a hundred years"

U.S. only gets around 35% of its energy from oil.

[billvon 3,110]

>>I was referring to "oil" being essentially the only source of energy for about a hundred years"

>U.S. only gets around 35% of its energy from oil.

The US is not the only country in the world, nor has its energy profile remained the same throughout its history.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>>I was referring to "oil" being essentially the only source of energy for about a hundred years"

>U.S. only gets around 35% of its energy from oil.

The US is not the only country in the world, nor has its energy profile remained the same throughout its history.

World energy production not much different, right around 35% for oil.