# Can we grow forever?



## basilio (28 May 2014)

At what stage does our economic system and society acknowledge that creating endless growth is impossible ?

It's a conversation that has been around for a number of years but not one that the business world wants to look at. One exception to that is  investment banker Jeremy Grantham. He is worth a few bill and is quite clear in his understanding that we cannot cannot to grow.

As an anecdote to that argument consider the following proposition.



> Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham.
> 
> Go on, take a guess. Ten times the size of the pyramids? All the sand in the Sahara? The Atlantic ocean? The volume of the planet? A little more?




Anyone for a guess and a comment on how we address the issue ?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



basilio said:


> Anyone for a guess and a comment on how we address the issue ?




A fairly general consensus from what I read is that educating women and giving them a career path is the best way to reduce the population growth which is feeding our increasing consumption. That means freeing them from the religious nutcases who believe that a woman's sole purpose is to breed and to be slaves for their husbands.

The business model is that continuous population growth is necessary to maintain living standards, but at some point living standards must fall as resources are consumed, they become scarcer and their prices rise to the point of unaffordability for the general population.

Technological improvements have the effect of reducing the amount of people needed to perform the same tasks, making the products cheaper and increasing sales, so there really is no justification for the fairly crude conclusion that population increase is the only way to maintain living standards.


----------



## basilio (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*

Not that sure that population growth is the biggest driver in "growth" . Certainly it plays a big part but I was focusing on the drive in economically mature countries to insist on endless growth as a measure of progress and the increasing production of new goods regardless of need. 

No guesses on the maths puzzle  ?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



basilio said:


> Not that sure that population growth is the biggest driver in "growth" . Certainly it plays a big part but I was focusing on the drive in economically mature countries to insist on endless growth as a measure of progress and the increasing production of new goods regardless of need.
> 
> No guesses on the maths puzzle  ?




Well, if you want a politically unpopular answer, increase taxes and spend it on items of 'need', health, education, infrastructure etc, thus reducing the discretionary wealth available for fashion shoes, handbags, Mercedes and Big Macs. 

I hope that answer doesn't offend too many.


----------



## basilio (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*

Well actually I was thinking about progressive decimation of the worlds population starting with the brain dead, unacceptably rich, hopelessly declasse and Hollywood wannabees.

Now *that* might be a bit politically sensitive.. 

Or perhaps simply posing the question and seeing if there is any flicker of light in peoples eyes.?


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



basilio said:


> Well actually I was thinking about progressive decimation of the worlds population starting with the brain dead, unacceptably rich, hopelessly declasse and Hollywood wannabees.




A bloke in the US recently had the same idea...

Suggest you start there


----------



## Judd (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



basilio said:


> Well actually I was thinking about progressive decimation of the worlds population starting with the brain dead, unacceptably rich, hopelessly declasse and Hollywood wannabees.
> 
> Now *that* might be a bit politically sensitive..
> 
> Or perhaps simply posing the question and seeing if there is any flicker of light in peoples eyes.?




Ah ha!  Challenge.  Is saving a life merely deferring the inevitable?  If so, why save that life?


----------



## sydboy007 (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*

we live in a finite world.  end of story.

we live in a world that needs the 4000 odd hours of slave labour cheaply supplied by a barrel of oil.  our society and economies can't survive for long when that slave labour gets expensive.

we keep hearing about the shale oil revolution in the USA.  The shale oil companies have seen their debt double over the last 4 years, but revenue is up just 5.6%.  Not a long term economic model me thinks.

arable land turning into desert at a scary rate, extraction of so much water from wells that more land has major issues with salinity - we have small countries worth of land destroyed by salt in australia.

the party will go on till it can't, then I'd say we go back to maybe a few hundred million humans spread around as much as possible making a medieval style existence.  no one really knows how to do anything these days.  we're all cogs in the economic system and pretty useless outside it.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



basilio said:


> Well actually I was thinking about progressive decimation of the worlds population starting with the brain dead, unacceptably rich, hopelessly declasse and Hollywood wannabees.
> 
> Now *that* might be a bit politically sensitive..
> 
> Or perhaps simply posing the question and seeing if there is any flicker of light in peoples eyes.?




A good plague or 2 will do it for us.


----------



## basilio (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*

Ok so let's see if we can throw a few lights on the subject.

Firstly the mathematical answer to the hypothetical question that was posed by Jeremy Grantham



> Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham.
> 
> Go on, take a guess. Ten times the size of the pyramids? All the sand in the Sahara? The Atlantic ocean? The volume of the planet? A little more?




The answer ?



> *It's 2.5 billion billion solar systems. *It does not take you long, pondering this outcome, to reach the paradoxical position that salvation lies in collapse.




I started this discussion after reading another wonderful, erudite  essay from George Monbiot.  I have just quoted his introduction. He manages to sum up the position in a relatively few paragraphs. Worth a read.

For a more indepth discussion it's worth checking out a more philosophical blog on the topic of economic growth.

Cheers


____________________________________________________________________________





> *It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up*
> It's the great taboo of our age – and the inability to discuss the pursuit of perpetual growth will prove humanity's undoing
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-cant-change-economic-system-our-number-is-up





> We need to talk about growth. (And we need to do the sums as well.)
> 
> _In my opinion, the greatest scandal of philosophy is that, while all around us the world of nature perishes – and not just the world of nature alone – philosophers continue to talk,sometimes cleverly and sometimes not, about the question of whether the world exists.     _        Karl Popper, Two Faces of Common Sense
> 
> ...




http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/


----------



## brty (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*

On stock forum, where growth is where money is made, questioning of 'the model' is blasphemy.

2.5 billion billion solar systems? Gosh I thought the answer in rough terms was 3.923 X (10)66 Cu Metres, or there abouts allowing for 187.5 doublings of the cubic metre.

You know what happened to the guy who asked for one grain of rice on the first square of the chess board, 2 on the second and 4 on the third etc.

Someone worked out last year that if the human race continued to grow at its present rate for the next 11,000 years, then we would occupy every Cu metre of the universe, with human flesh expanding faster than the speed of light for over 1000 years.
It's amazing what you can do with numbers.

On a serious note, it is clear the planet cannot sustain 7 billion people with the current western lifestyle. Resources are already stretched. Copper as an example has had it's average grade mined, fall (worldwide) from about 1.6% in 1990 to just under 1% today. Every tonne mined and refined is more expensive in terms of energy inputs as we go forward in time. Increasing energy inputs for the same output cannot end well when the Fossil Fuels we use are becoming scarce. Just looking at the price of Brent crude, $110/bbl, tells a lot of the story.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



brty said:


> On a serious note, it is clear the planet cannot sustain 7 billion people with the current western lifestyle. Resources are already stretched. Copper as an example has had it's average grade mined, fall (worldwide) from about 1.6% in 1990 to just under 1% today. Every tonne mined and refined is more expensive in terms of energy inputs as we go forward in time. Increasing energy inputs for the same output cannot end well when the Fossil Fuels we use are becoming scarce. Just looking at the price of Brent crude, $110/bbl, tells a lot of the story.



+1

There are plenty of metallic minerals and energy resources but the problems come down to grade, ease of extraction and the consequences of doing so.

We could mine copper at a 0.1% grade but there's a huge cost, both economic and environmental, of doing so. So there's a point below which, in practice, we'll never use the resource. We're not going to mine copper in order to make cables that nobody can afford to buy in the first place.

Same with oil. There's still lots of it but we've already tapped the easiest to extract and highest quality sources. What remains is harder to get at, creates far more pollution in doing so, and costs a lot more. Are we really going to double production and spend 20 times as much in order to do so? Not likely! A point comes where if it costs $1000 in fuel to fly Sydney to Melbourne (for example) well then most of the demand just disappears - growth stops and the oil stays in the ground.

Then there's the pure ecological aspects of it. Are we actually going to mine in Antarctica? No doubt there's minerals there, but are we actually going to make a mess down there to extract them? 

Even with renewable resources there are practical limits. The debate has been done to death over the past 42 years so I won't revive it here but suffice to say that we never did run short of trees or undammed rivers in Tasmania. And nobody, not even the deepest greens, really object to using hydro power from Great Lake or cutting a few trees here and there for building timber. But a point comes where production beyond a certain level requires that you cut trees or build dams in places that start ringing some serious alarm bells from an ecological perspective alone. Just because it can be logged or dammed doesn't mean that there isn't a downside to doing so, and as with oil we've already logged the low value forests and dammed the rivers that nobody really objects to - what remains is much higher impact environmentally. 

It's also higher cost - with any resource you tend to develop the cheapest sources first. Hence new hydro power costs a lot more than what we've already built. New sources of copper cost more than the mines we already have. And so on. Humans naturally pick the low hanging fruit first.

A few resources are somewhat stretched already. There is still plenty there to develop as such, but they have passed the "tipping point" where costs (economic and environmental) increase exponentially for each additional unit of production. Coal in the UK, oil at the global level, hydro power in many places etc. There's still plenty of coal, oil and flowing rivers but we've already used that which is cheapest and least objectionable.

Witness the present debate about coal seam gas. We've got a lot of gas available from "easy" sources that are cheap both financially and ecologically. But to keep expanding production requires that we develop sources that are more costly in both aspects - triple the price financially and an order of magnitude greater environmental risk. What we're seeing in Qld with gas today is essentially the same "wall" that Tasmania ran into a generation ago with hydro power and later with forestry - expansion is technically possible but only with increasing costs both economic and ecological. A point comes where the costs are just too great and society says "no".

The UK still mines coal today, but they hit the "wall" literally a century ago and it has been downhill ever since. Now realise that every other resource ultimately goes the same way - a child born today will almost certainly live to see the collapse of the Qld coal and gas industries as an example since even if we mine the whole lot there still isn't enough to sustain growth for another 80 or so years. And you can be pretty sure that, in practice, we'll say "no" long before the whole lot is actually mined.

Using the Qld coal and gas example, it's important to understand the difference between quantity and time. So far as quantity is concerned, most of the coal and virtually all of the gas is yet to be extracted. But so far as time is concerned, we're already a long way down the road with that one. Many years of relatively slow extraction uses a bit of the resource, then most of the rest goes rather quickly at a much higher rate of extraction. In the case of gas, we're about to take virtually the whole lot over the next third of a century.

Constant growth on a finite planet? Logic says it can't work and we've already seen a few instances of that "wall" being run into. All that remains is for something that matters enough to hit the wall at the global level and it's game over. My guess - oil. Not because it runs out (it won't), but because we just won't be able to withstand the costs (economic, environmental, military) of carrying on "business as usual".

When? Well that's anyone's guess but the warning signs are there today for things like oil, gas and a few other resources too.

Looking at previous examples, someone could blame Thatcher for the demise of the UK coal industry or they could blame Bob Brown for the demise of the Tasmanian dam building industry. But the warning signs were clear long before either of those two came on the scene. UK coal was uneconomic by the 1960's and production had already fallen amidst rising costs (resource depletion) and diminishing benefits of continued mining. And Lake Pedder went underwater in 1972 amidst considerable controversy which was only going to get bigger as even less desirable rivers were dammed. It was inevitable that at some point someone in a position of influence would call a halt to it all, the only questions being who and when. If it hadn't been Thatcher then it would have been somebody else. If it hadn't been Brown then someone else would sooner or later have lead the same fight and won. 

All the coal in the UK was never going to be mined and all the rivers in Tasmania were never going to be dammed. In theory perhaps, in both cases that was very much the thinking at one point, but not in practice. A point comes where the easy sources are used up, and what remains is just too costly financially and/or environmentally. Those are just two fairly well known examples - now translate that to every resource in every country. One by one they'll hit that same wall and growth either stops (renewables eg hydro or agriculture) or goes into reverse (mining).

When? Same principles as a company that goes broke. Very few companies choose to liquidate themselves at their peak even though that would be the rational thing to do. It's only long after decline sets in and much damage has already been done that the thought even occurs. We'll stop using coal and oil when either the financial cost us unaffordable, climate change is proven to be real because it actually happens, someone drops a bomb on Saudi, we actually poison the groundwater etc. In other words, we'll stop only when forced - it will be "business as usual" longer than logic says it ought to be.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 May 2014)

A perfect example of what smurf is talking about is BHP and their deciding against the olympic dam expansion.

The site multi-mineral ore body:


the world's fourth largest known copper deposit
the world's fourth largest known gold deposit
the world's largest known uranium deposit
significant quantities of silver

You'd think it would be a no brainer to go through with the expansion eh?  Copper grades of 1.6% make it a top grade resource.

But to ramp up production and get at most of the minerals left in the ground would require a 4KM long and 1 KM deep open pit mine.  It was going to take an estimated 4 years of digging before much new production would occur.  I have no idea how many millions of litres of diesel that would involve, nor of water and probably large amounts of electricity too.

That's the future we face where increasingly expensive fossil fuels are required to produce less and less outputs.  I personally see most Governments behaving similar to King Canute and whipping the ocean tide to stay out untill the inevitability of reality finally crashes through.


----------



## basilio (29 May 2014)

So where do we go from here ?

Are we (almost) literally sleep walking over the edge of a cliff? What would it take for rationality, logic and self preservation to rise to the top?  I note, for example, that The Greens party, which is the only one that gives any credence to a need for preservation/conservation/sustainability,  is derided as a bunch of irrational fairies in the garden.

Yet at this stage no major political parties, no major businesses and very few public speakers will discuss our need to review a growth at all costs economy. How do we start the conversation ? What vision do we offer ? What do we want to achieve?

More thoughts ?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 May 2014)

basilio said:


> So where do we go from here ?
> 
> Are we (almost) literally sleep walking over the edge of a cliff? What would it take for rationality, logic and self preservation to rise to the top?  I note, for example, that The Greens party, which is the only one that gives any credence to a need for preservation/conservation/sustainability,  is derided as a bunch of irrational fairies in the garden.
> 
> ...




Someone is going to have to come up with a detailed economic model that shows how people can benefit more from a steady state economy than from economic growth, otherwise the "what's in it for me" attitude will dismiss change and go with the tried and true, untill disaster strikes.


----------



## CanOz (29 May 2014)

*Re: Can we grow forever ?*



sydboy007 said:


> A good plague or 2 will do it for us.




I think a good start is engineer a virus to kill off the hopelessly pessimistic bears that keep ranting on forums...

You guys never cease to amaze me.

Do you ever find anything amazingly beautiful in this world that you can be grateful for?

Like, waking up everyday? A great tasting meal? A nice drop of red.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 May 2014)

basilio said:


> So where do we go from here ?
> 
> Are we (almost) literally sleep walking over the edge of a cliff? What would it take for rationality, logic and self preservation to rise to the top?  I note, for example, that The Greens party, which is the only one that gives any credence to a need for preservation/conservation/sustainability,  is derided as a bunch of irrational fairies in the garden.
> 
> ...




We need to stop being so greedy.  We need cheaper shelter so it would be possible to work less and have more free time to enjoy.  We need a change from the material to the spiritual so to speak.  Away from needing physical things to just enjoying time with family, friends doing the simple things in life.

We'd have to go back against thousands of years of wanting positional goods and being happy with stuff that does the job rather than shows our status.  We've really go to learn to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.

Personally I don't think we've got the ability to make these kind of changes on a country, let alone global wide scale.

Probably the fairest way is via a global pandemic.  It's generally how the planet has kept our population under control most of the time.  maybe the end of the age of antibiotics as Nature magazine says will usher it in for us?

It's funny, but I think the death of the car industry here is probably a good thing.  We'll probably need to start thinking about getting into motorcycle production soon.  I wonder what the litre cost of petrol will have to get to before it makes the a significant minority ditch their cars?  Considering most in the west are stagnating, those in Asia and other merging regions have been getting richer, though there's so many of them that they're still poor in an absolute sense, at what point does the price of petrol cause most car production to be uneconomic?  remember that the cost of high oil will work it's way through every corridor of the economy.  Fertilisers will be more expensive, mineral extraction more expensive, food transport and production costs go up.  The majority will have less and less cash left to actually purchase petrol for personal transport, and we already have some of the most expensive public transport in the world so it doesn't bode well for that sector either.


----------



## CanOz (29 May 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> We need to stop being so greedy.  We need cheaper shelter so it would be possible to work less and have more free time to enjoy.  We need a change from the material to the spiritual so to speak.  Away from needing physical things to just enjoying time with family, friends doing the simple things in life.
> 
> We'd have to go back against thousands of years of wanting positional goods and being happy with stuff that does the job rather than shows our status.  We've really go to learn to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.
> 
> ...




Now that was a good post Syd

Not too negative, i like it.

Motorcycles are a poor form of transport by the way. Bicycles are better. Electric cars are the future....I think we'll shift from a growth cycle to a new phase of modernization, sustainability and conservation. I believe its already happening, all be it too slowly as Asia trys to catch up with our example of over indulgence.

I also believe the human race is amazing and has the ability to overcome all obstacles. Our earth may be finite, but the universe is infinite.


----------



## craft (29 May 2014)

In my view, we can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. I think it's inevitable that our money system needs to change to eliminate the necessity for growth, and the change required revolves around positive interest rates.

I'm not going there again but there is a fair bit of debate around this subject in this thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27999&p=812416&viewfull=1#post812416

and some in the wealth inequality thread.


----------



## Ves (29 May 2014)

In early days of Sparta (estimated 750-800BC)  there was a legendary law-maker named Lycurgus.

I won't bore you with the details,  but the Kings / law-makers before him swung between very free democracy and extreme despotism to deal with their peoples who demanded freedom in any way shape or form, so much so that it destroyed the values of the city.

His drastic reforms were based on: equality (among citizens), military fitness, and austerity.

Sparta eventually become a very strong power in ancient Greece,  and was the envy of other city states for the undivided allegiance of its citizens,  its military disciple and the austere way that they approached life and its major decisions.

Two of the most interesting anecdotes that I was reminded of by this thread that have been passed down from ancient historians were the following:

(quotes from Wikipedia).



> Plutarch, in his "Life of Lycurgus," attributes to Lycurgus also a thoroughgoing reassignment and equalizing of landholdings and wealth among the population, "For there was an extreme inequality amongst them, and their state was overloaded with a multitude of indigent and necessitous persons, while its whole wealth had centred upon a very few. To the end, therefore, that he might expel from the state arrogance and envy, luxury and crime, and those yet more inveterate diseases of want and superfluity, he obtained of them to renounce their properties, and to consent to a new division of the land, and that they should all live together on an equal footing; merit to be their only road to eminence..." (trans. Dryden)[5] That is, Lycurgus is said to have been the originator of the Spartan "Homoioi," the "Equals," citizens who had no wealth differentiation among them, an early example of distributism, insofar as the citizens (not the Helots) were concerned. This radical lifestyle differentiated the Spartans once again from other Greeks of their time.






> As a measure against luxury, Lycurgus prescribed forbidding the use of any tools other than an axe and saw in the building of a house.[1] This practice was consistent with Spartan moderateness in that it prevented the walls and ceilings of the home from being excessively embellished or superfluous, thus discouraging citizens from further adorning their homes with extravagant furniture or other decorations.




I smiled to myself when pondering the outrage that this would occur in the modern age.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 May 2014)

CanOz said:


> Now that was a good post Syd
> 
> Not too negative, i like it.
> 
> ...




Unless we have a massive change in battery technology then I don't see electric cars being more than a very small niche product.  Lithium is a rare metal, and in it's pure form is practically explosive, so recycling of old batteries is difficult and expensive.  There's just not enough lithium to go around a few billions cars.

I do hope we're able to harness renewable energy sources fast enough to overcome the depletion of oil especially, but so far I feel the vested interests of the old world technologies are holding us back too hard.  Globally we need a massive investment into basic sciences to help make cheaper solar cells, cheaper small scale wind turbines, and other new forms of renewable energy production.  Heck a bigger research budget into thorium reactors on a global scale is required.

I don't understand why the CSIRO is having more of their funding cut, when it should be increasing.  Their SOLGAS initiative could help save Australia's massive LNG over-investment that's at the upper end of the cost curve.  We have a potential change of university funding that will encourage more merchant banker degrees at the expense of the hard sciences.  We really do need some ground breaking breakthroughs or we're really stuffed.

So for myself, I'll follow the reduce, reuse, recycle motto, and buy carbon offsets for my one indulgence in life of air travel.

I'm still amazed when I get my energy bills for a 3 person share household and see we use 50% less electricity and gas than similar houses.  I've got no idea what a lot of people do at home, but from where I'm sitting in a LED and some CFL light house there's still plenty of low hanging economically rational choices for people to make to save themselves money and help to conserve resources.


----------



## CanOz (29 May 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I'm still amazed when I get my energy bills for a 3 person share household and see we use 50% less electricity and gas than similar houses.  I've got no idea what a lot of people do at home, but from where I'm sitting in a LED and some CFL light house there's still plenty of low hanging economically rational choices for people to make to save themselves money and help to conserve resources.




We live in such as wasteful world....

As a manager exposed to lean manufacturing practices, i'm trained to constantly see waste. After a while you start to apply lots of good practice at home. If half the planet willing and able to reduce waste, it would make a huge impact on resource consumption...

I do agree though, that unless we change the way we define success (Growth), then we will fall further and further behind as a planet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2014)

All of this basically comes down to two issues:

1. Availability of natural resources that can be cheaply extracted (non-renewables) or developed (renewable).

2. Ecological consequences of extraction and use of those resources.

We've only got about 150 years worth of coal left globally, a figure that has roughly halved since the year 2000. That sort of thing is one issue.

But even if we did find a trillion tonnes of coal somewhere, then there's the ecological consequences of using it.

Put those two together and there's your "limit to growth". Coal is just one example of many.

China is probably the best and most well known example of rapid growth in recent times. But look at the situation today. Burning close to 4 billion tonnes of coal a year (more than every other country combined) and set to completely exhaust local coal sources within 20 years. There's the resource issue.

One workaround is to import coal. But doing so sends wealth out of the country, thus reducing the very economic growth in China that coal is literally fuelling in the first place. China does import some coal, but we're not going to see them doubling use and importing 8 billion tonnes of the stuff each year, that's 900,000 tonnes per hour,  20 years from now that's pretty certain. 

And even if China has more coal than official estimates suggest or did somehow manage to import on such a massive scale, then there are the consequences of using it. They've already got some pretty serious issues with air pollution, acid rain and ash disposal.

So it's fair to assume that coal as either a driver or means of enabling further growth in China is pretty much a spent force. The resource itself is one problem, the consequences of using it are another. They're close to hitting the wall, beyond which further growth comes at an exponential increase in cost both economic and environmental to the point where it ceases to be viable.

Much the same happened in the US in the 1970's when conventional oil production peaked. Sure, they could import oil to keep the game going in a physical sense. But doing so came with all manner of political issues and a huge financial cost too. That plus the reality that US cities were by that point already choking on smog anyway. Essentially the same problem that China now faces with coal.

But what about some miracle alternative energy source such as thorium or geothermal? It fixes the coal problem certainly, but all it really does is keep the game going until some other limit is reached be it some other natural resource (eg metals) or some ecological constraint.

Alternative energy is a bit like giving up smoking cigarettes whilst continuing to ramp up your already very high level of alcohol consumption. All you've really done is to ensure that your lungs aren't the thing that gives out first, but you'll still be dead pretty soon once your liver or kidneys fail.

It's much the same with energy. Sure, develop thorium, dam every last river, cover the place with wind farms and solar panels and so on. Then we just run out of copper, rare earths or agricultural land instead of running out of coal or oil. It doesn't fix the problem, it just shifts the impact from one area (energy) to another.

Now what about those who use LED lights at home, drive a Prius and so on. That's all well and good, but every dollar saved on electricity or petrol is going to be spent on something else instead. And that something else, whatever it is, will consume resources and pollute in its' production. You've shifted the impact but you haven't eliminated it that's for sure.

Back to Tasmania as a case in point, the "Green" vision is a classic example. No more dams and stop cutting so many trees. OK then, just one problem since the "alternative" is tourism. And tourism burns a heck of a lot more oil than we ever burnt piling up rocks or carting wood. The point of impact has been shifted but so long as there's still economic activity occurring then it hasn't been avoided. Those belching fumes may well be gone from the factories that once dominated Burnie, but go to the top of Mt Nelson and you'll see a smoke plume from every cruise ship that comes into Hobart. There's still pollution, there's still resources being used, it's just that it's now done in order to move tourists around rather than to make paper. Meanwhile, of course, the paper not made here is now being made somewhere else instead thus meaning that at the global level tourism has become an addition to, not a replacement for, manufacturing industries we once had closer to home.

So long as we have an economic system that requires constant growth as its' very basis, we won't be fixing the problem of sustainability. Even if we do stop using coal and oil, we'll just keep ramping up the use of everything else until the "oil problem" becomes the copper, phosphate or some other resource problem and/or concern about CO2 etc is replaced with concern about some other form of pollution. It's still a finite planet no matter what means we use to generate electricity or power vehicles.

For the record, I'm no doomer and I sure don't own a tin foil hat. But I don't expect to see constant growth carry on forever either.


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> So long as we have an economic system that requires constant growth as its' very basis, we won't be fixing the problem of sustainability. Even if we do stop using coal and oil, we'll just keep ramping up the use of everything else until the "oil problem" becomes the copper, phosphate or some other resource problem and/or concern about CO2 etc is replaced with concern about some other form of pollution. It's still a finite planet no matter what means we use to generate electricity or power vehicles.




My understanding is that phosphate depletion will be the defining moment when a lot of agriculture is no longer able to provide the yields for a high global population. There is no alternative to phosphorous, no synthetic ways of creating it. According to the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative (GPRI) phosphate reserves will last 75 to 200 years, though some are now saying maybe 50-100 years is more realistic. Unless we have some amazing GM breakthroughs with most food crops we'll be stuffed since we'll no longer be able to rely on fertilisers to boost crop yields. There are already some plants that require very low levels of phosphate for healthy growth, so we're likely to have to discover which genes give them the ability and transplant them to major food crops.

We'll seriously have to start considering sewage effluent as a valuable resource in the near future as it will eventually be about the only source or phosphorous we have left, but that's only delaying the depletion. Some areas in Sweden have already started diverting urine for phosphate harvesting. We will also have to move towards no-till farming, terracing, contour tilling, and the use of windbreaks have been shown to reduce the rate of phosphorus depletion from farmland. This just reduces the rate at which we need to continually reapply phosphate to farmland though.

Any which way we look at it, the truth is there's too many of us to have a decent standard of life for an extended period of time ie beyond another 3 or 4 generations.


----------



## basilio (30 May 2014)

So why was this thread moved  here ? I  intended it to be a largely a social comment thread regarding the question of how/when/if ever our society recognised that perpetual growth on a finite planet was clearly impossible. 

Not to worry.  We can change the world just as well from this possie on ASF as any other one can't we ? 

Totally (dismally) agree with Smurf /Sydboy et al on the inescapable realities of our current trajectory. Just leaves the questions of 
1) Any thoughts on how we could magically convince the rest of the world to hold and reverse the current focus on growth at all costs.

2) Come up with another alternative that might see some form of civilization continue to survive in a world that falls apart when the realities of failing resources strikes home. or

3) well, whatever you want to say.

This issue isn't of course new to humankind. Jared Diamond did a fantastic job of examining how/where previous societies collapsed when they faced  ecological limits to their existence. Check out the URls of his book as well as the TED presentation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed  (Wiki review)
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse  (TED presentation)
http://www.e-reading.by/bookreader...._Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed.pdf(full book 

http://www.survivopedia.com/


----------



## sydboy007 (30 May 2014)

basilio said:


> So why was this thread moved  here ? I  intended it to be a largely a social comment thread regarding the question of how/when/if ever our society recognised that perpetual growth on a finite planet was clearly impossible.
> 
> Not to worry.  We can change the world just as well from this possie on ASF as any other one can't we ?
> 
> ...




I read Jarod Diamonds book on societal collapse  Very informative.  Can you imagine that Easter Island used to have the tallest known palm tress.  I like the way he poses the question, what did they think when they cut the last standing tree on the island?  I often wonder what it would be like when the majority know it's the end.  You have to leave because there's nothing left?

The Anasazi Indians are another interest society that destroyed itself.  From relatively fertile lands to one of the larger desserts in the USA over a few hundred years.  Sorta contradicts those who say humans had minimal impact on the land until recently.

I honestly think the best we'll be able to hold onto is some sort of early industrial society, and that only by mining the cities and ruins of our fallen society.  When pretty much every major religion is calling on it's followers to breed like rabbits, I don't see population growth reversing until it's forced to.


----------



## pavilion103 (30 May 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I read Jarod Diamonds book on societal collapse  Very informative.  Can you imagine that Easter Island used to have the tallest known palm tress.  I like the way he poses the question, what did they think when they cut the last standing tree on the island?  I often wonder what it would be like when the majority know it's the end.  You have to leave because there's nothing left?  The Anasazi Indians are another interest society that destroyed itself.  From relatively fertile lands to one of the larger desserts in the USA over a few hundred years.  Sorta contradicts those who say humans had minimal impact on the land until recently.  I honestly think the best we'll be able to hold onto is some sort of early industrial society, and that only by mining the cities and ruins of our fallen society.  When pretty much every major religion is calling on it's followers to breed like rabbits, I don't see population growth reversing until it's forced to.




Sydboy, 
It's not religion ( well I can only talk about Christ) that us crazy. It's the people distort the principles that are crazy.

That abusive father is no reflection on a Christianity. He is a reflection on himself who is not living by the principles of the belief system that he "claims" to have.

People under all banners can be whackos. They can also go by whatever label they choose.

But a pilot is someone who flies a plane, not someone who goes around telling people that he flies a plane or someone that calls himself a pilot.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 May 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> I like the way he poses the question, what did they think when they cut the last standing tree on the island?  I often wonder what it would be like when the majority know it's the end.  You have to leave because there's nothing left?




Ever worked in a business that was once booming but which then slowly went broke?

A few wake up to the situation early on, but overall it resembles a parabolic curve with most staff not being really aware until close to the end. Whilst some will have spotted the problems early, it's not until the bills aren't being paid and the staff are sitting around with little if anything to do that most realise it really is over. Then it all falls apart _very_ quickly.

I'd imagine that a collapse of society or the broad economy would somewhat resemble a business collapse. Directors etc know what's going on but choose to ignore it. Lower level managers and supervisors might not know the details but they'll be aware that things aren't good. The ordinary staff will in most cases not wake up until it's too late however.

Translating that to society, Prime Ministers and Presidents will know the reality but choose to ignore it. People like state Premiers and business leaders will have more info than most, but probably not the full picture. Everyone else is one of the masses, a few are alert enough to work out for themselves that there's trouble but most won't realise until it actually happens.


----------



## basilio (30 May 2014)

Going back to Jared Diamonds book Collapse. I was particularly fascinated with his analysis of the collapse of the Viking settlements in Greenland. It actually took hundreds of years and the societies  slowly starved. If you are interested you can check out the section in the PDF link I left.

*One of the key points I thought was the recognition that the most powerful figures were the last affected by the deterioration of the environment and the overall capacity of the land to support people. They were the most insulated from the effects and were able to keep drawing resources after the poorer people starved.*

Looks a lot like our society I think..

It was also interesting to see how in some societies a determined authoritarian approach to preserving resources was in fact the effective solution. The Dominician Republic under the dictator Trujillo instigate a planned, determined approach to repairing the forests. Similarly the Japanese Shoguns in the 16th Century were faced with a decimated forest as a result previous over exploitation. They too, instituted meticulous, planned reforestation and sustainable foresty practices.

Fascinating...


----------



## sydboy007 (31 May 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> Sydboy,
> It's not religion ( well I can only talk about Christ) that us crazy. It's the people distort the principles that are crazy.
> 
> That abusive father is no reflection on a Christianity. He is a reflection on himself who is not living by the principles of the belief system that he "claims" to have.
> ...




The problem is a lot of people take their queues and lead their life according to how their chosen religous leader interprets the "holy" word.

Just look at Catholicism.  Still against the use of condoms and condemning so many women to unwanted births and the spread of disease.  You can argue the toss if their interpretation is right or wrong, but the fact is many people choose to follow this edict.

Hundreds of years ago this concept of marriages for procreating probably made sense to keep the species alive, but the fact is even if by some miracle population growth went negative today, the decline in population would take too long to have any beneficial impact.  Somehow we need to get from a population of 7B+ back to 2-3B and pretty quickly.  I personally don't see it happening by choice when a large chunk of the population still chooses to obey religious edicts that favour high birth rates.


----------



## basilio (31 May 2014)

Came across an excellent discussion on this topic.  IMO worth a read



> *We need to talk about growth. (And we need to do the sums as well.)*
> February 27, 2014Climate Change, Economic Growth, Environment, Future Prosperity, Philosophy, Science, Sustainability
> 
> 
> ...




http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/


----------

