Originally posted by WoodgieI don't think it is that far off actually, and exponential growth being that very reason. It wouldn't be too long before this planet is way too over crowded and not enough resources to cater for all.
Capitalism exists on supply and demand and sustainability, it can only stagnate if the supply or demand disappears.
With the exponential growth of humanity, stagnation might be a little way off.
2 edits
Originally posted by lauseyDuplication fallacy. We haven't grown from the industrial revolution by replicating resource inefficient technologies, but by remarkable improvements in efficiency. Sure, we have also grown by using more but growth would not stop because we're still very far from attainable efficiency.
I don't think it is that far off actually, and exponential growth being that very reason. It wouldn't be too long before this planet is way too over crowded and not enough resources to cater for all.
Population growth is a bigger problem, but that is not economic growth.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaEDIT: Ignore my point. It was just expressing a limit which I figure will still be quite far into the future considering there is still plenty of room for improvement in efficiency, as you rightly mentioned and I overlooked. 😕
Duplication fallacy. We haven't grown from the industrial revolution by replicating resource inefficient technologies, but by remarkable improvements in efficiency. Sure, we have also grown by using more but growth would not stop because we're still very far from attainable efficiency.
Population growth is a bigger problem, but that is not economic growth.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyYes, population growth is a big problem because it is a growth by replication. This is a problem, because you multiply needs without necessarily improving what you can do with what you have. The surface area there is a problem. I think overpopulation is actually very serious.
Isn't there still a limit though? Certainly necessity is the mother of invention, but human population can still increase more rapidly than the rates of advances in technology. The planet also has a limited surface area.
But for a constant population, then the potential for growth is still huge. Just think of the amount of waste we produce, that's the sign of inefficiency. Or the waste of energy in production, distribution and consumption. There are huge gains to be made just by changing habits, let alone future technological improvements.
Mankind may very well witness a global version of the Easter Island but that will be because we have grown wastefully not because we could not have grown properly.
Originally posted by PalynkaCan't argue with that.
Yes, population growth is a big problem because it is a growth by replication. This is a problem, because you multiply needs without necessarily improving what you can do with what you have. The surface area there is a problem. I think overpopulation is actually very serious.
But for a constant population, then the potential for growth is still huge. Just ...[text shortened]... but that will be because we have grown wastefully not because we could not have grown properly.
Originally posted by shavixmirDon't worry. Smarter people than you already understood what I said.
I wouldn't even know what the question is if not that which I have addressed, perhaps you don't know the argument and just keep repeating yourself in the hope of receiving attention and obscuring the obvious facts I have stated.
Originally posted by lauseyI believe that Capitalism is living out its final years, it is not so much over population to the point there will be no space left or over crowded, but the damage that another 3 generations will inflict on the earth and the quality of life they will be presented with.
I don't think it is that far off actually, and exponential growth being that very reason. It wouldn't be too long before this planet is way too over crowded and not enough resources to cater for all.
At the moment we can afford to play around with monetary games and believe that liquidity is important, and for this era it is, but when the fundamental building blocks of life disappear, how will the compound interest on a rotting potato be worked out.
Luckily for us, we just have to worry about bankers not doing their job properly and selling things that don't really exist.
Sod the future, I am screwed now.
Originally posted by PalynkaI should have continued reading before posting after reading your post.
Yes, population growth is a big problem because it is a growth by replication. This is a problem, because you multiply needs without necessarily improving what you can do with what you have. The surface area there is a problem. I think overpopulation is actually very serious.
But for a constant population, then the potential for growth is still huge. Just ...[text shortened]... but that will be because we have grown wastefully not because we could not have grown properly.
That is an excellent point you make, but the cure flies in the face of Capitalism and the current understanding of the term "Growth".
Originally posted by WoodgieIf by capitalism you mean completely free market liberalism/libertarianism, then it never existed and it is a dangerous pipe dream. But if, like I do, there you include social democracies where societies use markets extensively but acknowledge their limitations in some aspects, then I think that might be here for some time yet (although obviously we're not at the end of history). I just don't see any viable alternative that might replace it any time soon, unless mankind harks back to authoritarianism.
I believe that Capitalism is living out its final years, it is not so much over population to the point there will be no space left or over crowded, but the damage that another 3 generations will inflict on the earth and the quality of life they will be presented with.
At the moment we can afford to play around with monetary games and believe that liquidi ...[text shortened]... r job properly and selling things that don't really exist.
Sod the future, I am screwed now.
Originally posted by WoodgieCan you expand on this? I don't understand why you think it flies in the face of the current understanding of the term "growth".
I should have continued reading before posting after reading your post.
That is an excellent point you make, but the cure flies in the face of Capitalism and the current understanding of the term "Growth".