Is our growth sustainable?

Smurf1976 · 6 November 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
The average age is 7 years,

= an item which is basically "thrown away" beyond a certain point, usually triggered by a repair being required, well before it is actually worn out in a technical sense.

I think the real point I'm trying to make here is being missed. Nobody is likely to actually spend serious $ replacing batteries on a 10 year old electric car given that cars that age have little value anyway. If the battey life is pretty much a given as 10 years tops, then that basically puts a hard limit on the lifespan of the car for the vast majority of users for whom replacement won't be economically viable.

Starcraftmazter · 7 November 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
I don't feel he makes enough of an allowance for human innovation.

And you do not make enough of an allowance for government corruption.

Tysonboss1 said:
Unlimited cheap energy gives rise to all sorts of options, will unlimited cheap energy their is no shortage of water, no shortage of metals etc.etc

Energy is by far the biggest cost and the biggest limiting factor in our economy, with cheap energy all sorts of recycling options, mining option, water options become available.

Please elaborate. Mass recycling is not so much an energy problem as it is a problem with capitalism. Also note, desalination has enormous environmental impacts - in particular on marine life.

No matter how much easier mining will get, there will still be fewer resources left to mine, at lower grades and concentrations. How far can it go? We will have to severely deface our planet just to get enough resources to live in a sustainable way unless the world's population significantly shrinks.

Tysonboss1 said:
It's a bit crazy to think that we are any where near perfection as far as human innovation goes, in 100 years they will look back at 2011 in a similar fashion to the way we look back at 1911.

Just a pipe dream mate, there are no butterflies in the future of this planet, only misery. Too many greedy and powerful people would rather profit from us scrambling and slaving away to compete for the last natural resources left on the planet.

If clean, cheap energy does not benefit them, it will never be allowed - simple as that. No such company will get a loan, or regulatory approval, any people involved will be murdered, technology stolen. There are people every year in various countries who claim to have invented some way of gathering energy much better. They are very soon never heard from again. None of this is new.

Tysonboss1 · 8 November 2011

There is a lot of stuff that does not get recycled because it is not "economical" to recycle it, this means it costs more to collect, transport and process than is recovered at the end, a large portion of those costs are energy costs.

Again with mining, a large portion of a mines costs are energy, lowering the costs of mining means existing mines could continue into lower grade ores, also with cheap energy metals that are dissolved in sea water could be extracted, Japan has already got a system that could produce uranium from sea water for $250 a kilo.

Human labour it's self would be cheaper, over 90% of a persons income is spent on energy, not just directly eg. electricity, gas and petrel you burn your self. But also indirectly, eg, a loaf of bread was baked, transported, packaged, flour milled, crops planted and sprayed, displayed in a lit store etc etc.

If you lowered the cost of energy you would lower the cost of living, and there fore there would be less pressure on raising minimum wages etc,

Smurf1976 · 8 November 2011

I'm glad to see that someone "gets it" about energy...

Energy isn't like anything else and it's the one reasource we should be concerned about above all others.

Mr Z · 8 November 2011

With energy we can solve most other issues... our economies are effectively back by energy these days. No cheap energy and we will be severely hampered... that is definitely issue #1.

Starcraftmazter · 8 November 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
Human labour it's self would be cheaper, over 90% of a persons income is spent on energy, not just directly eg. electricity, gas and petrel you burn your self. But also indirectly, eg, a loaf of bread was baked, transported, packaged, flour milled, crops planted and sprayed, displayed in a lit store etc etc.

In what country? I don't even spend 50% of my income.

I agree that energy is the #1 issue, but it is a ruse to say it is the only important issue or that it can fix all or even most problems.

Aussiejeff · 9 November 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
I agree that energy is the #1 issue, but it is a ruse to say it is the only important issue or that it can fix all or even most problems.

For the first 2.5 million years of humankind's existence, "energy" was far from being the #1 issue.

IMO the "energy is the #1 issue" issue has only arisen in the past say, 50 years (or .000016% of humankind's timeline) because of the primary let's-bury-our-heads-in-the-sand-because-it's-all-too-horrible-to-contemplate-any-workable-solution issue for solving the Number One Burning Issue...

...and that is - Human OVERPOPULATION in relation to the finite amount of earth resources available.

FACT- If human population had been kept sustainable in relation to energy sources, there would be no current energy issues!

*sniff*

I need some tissues after those issues.....

Tysonboss1 · 9 November 2011

Starcraftmazter said:
In what country? I don't even spend 50% of my income.

.

perhaps if your saving it, but i you are spending it a large chunk is going to energy. As I said I am not just talking about the petrel, gas and elec you directly pay for,

I am talking about the every thing the energy input into the Food, Clothing, housing, water and production and transport of the goods you buy. etc etc

Mr Z · 9 November 2011

Aussiejeff said:
FACT- If human population had been kept sustainable in relation to energy sources, there would be no current energy issues!

Hey Jeff! Isn't that a bit circular? We have made a quantum leap in energy potential at almost every major change in energy source, which was driven by need! Assuming that population rises now lead to the perfection of a renewable that does not really solve the population issue. Also at some point in that 2.5 million year history it was our mastering of external energy sources that defined us as a species. Be it fire or the use of water those basics enabled us to move forward.

IMO with energy we stand a chance of solving the other issues and eventually developing a secure enough life that we stabilize our populations, without it we are screwed.

The question in my mind is what is the sustainable limit? The answer to that is in technique (technology) which is dependent on energy. Again the discussion gets circular and I am afraid we will not know if we are in overreach until we are there and experiencing failure. Then we will respond under crises and find out what is truly possible. Crisis is the only certainty here IMO --> it is the way we do things!

craft · 9 November 2011

Aussiejeff said:
For the first 2.5 million years of humankind's existence, "energy" was far from being the #1 issue.

Energy is and has always been the number 1 Issue. It controls natural populations and diversity.

If it costs less then 1 KJ to find and capture your next one KJ of energy, then your species population grows at the expense of your prey. If it costs more, then your population decreases taking pressure of the prey and letting it recover. KJ’s expended being in equilibrium with KJ consumed is the natural order. Humans in recent history have been able to super charge the natural order through utilising stored energy and our population has exploded. We must continue to find ways of liberating stored energy or suffer a massive reversal in human population. Nature dictates it.

If we are successful in liberating the stored energy we have become accustomed too, how long will it be before an un-natural population decimates finite elements or critical natural balances?

Why is it that the virus seeks to destroy the host it needs for its very survival? We need a global approach to getting consumption/population down to a naturally sustainable level otherwise we are picking a fight with our host that we will ultimately loose in a very messy way.

Tysonboss1 · 9 November 2011

craft said:
If we are successful in liberating the stored energy we have become accustomed too, how long will it be before an un-natural population decimates finite elements or critical natural balances?

Thats the biggest question,

One saving grace is the notion that as populations become more urbanised and educated birth rates have a big decrease, and population growth slows.

As we reach our limit, the free market would naturally be making the cost of living increasingly expensive, and people would natually start questioning whether having more than 1 or 2 children per couple or if having any kids would make their life better.

Mr Z · 9 November 2011

It is an observable phenomena that population growth stabilizes as wealth increases. The question is at what level and is that actually achievable or sustainable for a given life style.

Zero growth economies and recyclable everything is where we need to end up BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.

Tysonboss1 · 9 November 2011

craft said:
Why is it that the virus seeks to destroy the host it needs for its very survival? We need a global approach to getting consumption/population down to a naturally sustainable level otherwise we are picking a fight with our host that we will ultimately loose in a very messy way.

Our Host is going to die anyway, It's the nature of the universe. It is just a matter of how many generations we can fit in before our host dies, and it would be prefered that our host died of natural causes,

craft · 9 November 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
Thats the biggest question,

One saving grace is the notion that as populations become more urbanised and educated birth rates have a big decrease, and population growth slows.

As we reach our limit, the free market would naturally be making the cost of living increasingly expensive, and people would natually start questioning whether having more than 1 or 2 children per couple or if having any kids would make their life better.

Not so sure

Ideally these countries with birth rates dropping would have steady GDP per capita and a corresponding decrease in cumulative GDP. But it seems the more we have the more we want, the aim seems to be an incessant focus on cumulative GDP growth and ever spiralling upwards GDP per capita. Not having kids doesn’t seem to be a deliberate attempt to limit cumulative consumption; seems to me the motivation is more along the lines of not wanting to dilute the power to consume.

Tysonboss1 said:
Our Host is going to die anyway, It's the nature of the universe. It is just a matter of how many generations we can fit in before our host dies, and it would be prefered that our host died of natural causes,

I suspect if we keep carrying on as we have the global immune system will kick in and put as back into our box many millions of generations before we would need to worry about the natural end of our host.

craft · 9 November 2011

Mr Z said:
BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.

We designed the credit system - we can Re-design it. Negative interest rates (a type of demurrage charge on holding cash) would work just as well to control velocity of the money supply and without the endless need for growth dictated by money scarcity created via a positive interest rate.

Negative real interest rates are already occurring in some parts of the world as we start to face our limits to overall growth – perhaps we will redesign the system by default as we stumble forward.

Mr Z · 9 November 2011

Negative rates means no credit and an economy that migrates back to cash. Negative real rates is only achievable while you can keep people fooled, that fails at some point, then the velocity of money rises along with the negative price effects of the latter half of an inflation. Simply re-engineering our credit system is a substantial challenge, I have not yet seen any suggestion that would work.

Tysonboss1 · 9 November 2011

craft said:
I suspect if we keep carrying on as we have the global immune system will kick in and put as back into our box many millions of generations before we would need to worry about the natural end of our host.

depends how far away the meteor is,

craft · 9 November 2011

Mr Z said:
Simply re-engineering our credit system is a substantial challenge, I have not yet seen any suggestion that would work.

I have found Bernard Lietaer to be very interesting reading in this area. certainly brightened my oulook on the possabilities for adapting the financial system.

http://www.lietaer.com/

Smurf1976 · 9 November 2011

Mr Z said:
Zero growth economies and recyclable everything is where we need to end up BUT that idea undermines some of the very pillars that our system is built on. For instance modern credit systems need metered growth to stay stable, zero growth challenges the very way our financial systems work.

The financial system is the crux of the problem. Ultimately, we need to get to a point where the Reserve Bank (or whoever is running the show by then) targets stability, not growth. Until that time, anything else we do toward sustainability is futile at best.

Starcraftmazter · 10 November 2011

Tysonboss1 said:
perhaps if your saving it, but i you are spending it a large chunk is going to energy. As I said I am not just talking about the petrel, gas and elec you directly pay for,

I am talking about the every thing the energy input into the Food, Clothing, housing, water and production and transport of the goods you buy. etc etc

I am better aware than the majority as to how much energy is in everything, in particular food. This just doesn't address the issue of over-population though. At best, the money saved on energy will be spent on consuming the rest of our natural resources at a faster rate.

Is our growth sustainable?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency