Can we grow forever?

[sydboy007]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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


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

1. Why should we talk about growth?

Growth is a big issue, and getting bigger all the time, but not one that yet generates serious discussion in the community. Nor has it been the subject of mainstream political critique. That economic growth is good is a view unchallenged by any major political party in Australia, with the exception of the Greens – and more than anything else it is their questioning of growth that has seen the major parties condemn the Greens as a fringe political movement.

No doubt there are deep philosophical – or at least ideological – reasons for this, but the problem might also be explained by our simple failure to understand the mathematics of growth. This has been persuasively argued by the US based investment advisor Jeremy Grantham, in a paper Time to Wake Up: Days of abundant resources and falling prices are over forever.

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