Submitted by candymannequin t3_ydb3qp in explainlikeimfive
jawfish2 t1_itrw0iz wrote
I don't know how to get to the five year old level on this... sorry
Classical economics expects growth, forever. Many scientists have complained that this is absurd, and untested, and unprovable, given the laws of thermodynamics and a finite planet. Indeed any observer can see today that our population requirements are bumping up against resource limits and global warming.
Ancient empires grew until they exhausted local resources and then collapsed (OK its much more complicated than that, but still they did).
There is a small minority of economists who examine no-growth and slow-growth, but I don't think they are much heard. I would say they look to something like ecological balance as a sustainable model. The advantages of growth are obvious, but the opposite in a growth-based economy, recession/depression/deflation, are disastrous. Ironically no-growth might make it impossible to get to climate resilience and survival.
kanated t1_its7oz4 wrote
>Classical economics expects growth, forever. Many scientists have complained that this is absurd, and untested, and unprovable, given the laws of thermodynamics and a finite planet. Indeed any observer can see today that our population requirements are bumping up against resource limits and global warming.
It's not absurd at all because economic models never claimed to be able to predict anything at the time scale where the laws of thermodynamics become the upper limit to growth.
We're hitting resource limits and global warming but all of that has solutions. We could do a full turn towards renewable energy sources right now and economies would still grow. They just wouldn't grow as much, so short term greed doesn't allow it.
None of that is preventing growth. Quite the opposite, right now growth rates are a source of the problem, not a consequence.
>Ancient empires grew until they exhausted local resources and then collapsed
This didn't really happen very often. Ancient empires didn't really have the production capacity to exhaust big resource reserves.
The more common case is that ancient empires collapsed because the resources themselves decreased due to outside factors. War, disease, drought, floods, etc...
You can advocate for slow and sustainable growth all you want. No one's going to say it's not a worthy cause. However, a system that works contrary to human nature is bound to fail and therefore pointless. The solution lies in playing along with human nature, and not against it. Research leads to technological advances that make sustainable energy sources cheaper, and therefore better for both growth and sustainability. Vote for that.
Peter_deT t1_itsnooo wrote
Loss of soil quality (topsoil loss, deforestation, erosion, salinity) was a major contributing factor to the decline of Rome, the Abbasids and probably a few others. So ecology matters.
Gordwait t1_itsqmmg wrote
There’s a great website, called Do The Math. He goes into great detail on the continuous GDP growth idea. Unfortunately it’s very bad news, and renewables help but not by much as continuous GDP growth follows a compound interest rate like curve.
candymannequin OP t1_itry194 wrote
this was one of my favorite responses
Continuity_organizer t1_itslkng wrote
Totally wrong from an economic perspective though. The poster doesn't even understand what economic growth means.
I would try to explain it to him, but it's quite clear that he's more interested in disagreeing with economists than trying to understand them.
As your own post demonstrates, the biggest problem with trying to teach economics is that people think they already know it.
candymannequin OP t1_itsmeeo wrote
you must be fun at parties.
do you have something positive to add to the conversation or are you hear to bandy insults instead of answer questions?
Continuity_organizer t1_itsnh2a wrote
Your post doesn't belong in this form because you're not actually asking a question that you don't understand the answer to.
When you say "I don't understand..." you actually mean "I don't agree..." which is why a ridiculous answer that no economist or economics professor would actually give you is the one you like the best.
candymannequin OP t1_itso2mi wrote
how can you see in my head?! oh right, you can't. as numerous people have helpfully explained to me here, I was misunderstanding what gdp increase really means. thanks to their helpful replies, i now understand why gdp has obviously trended upwards, and that temporary setbacks, and economic ups and downs obviously wouldn't affect that.
I guess what was throwing me off is less economics and more the general "corporate" idea that companies should turn record profits year after year... which doesn't seem feasible to me.
thanks for your.... bad faith assumptions. maybe you are the one that doesn't belong on this sub?
ShalmaneserIII t1_itsqnkg wrote
> I would say they look to something like ecological balance as a sustainable model.
Except this is not remotely how ecology works. Species grow and use all the resources they can gain, then generally die out when circumstances change or disasters strike (or both).
The entire planet is composed of endless cycles of boom and bust- why not human society?
jawfish2 t1_itxcapf wrote
Well presumably there would still be market-like conditions and individual segments/companies/individuals would go through boom and bust. But you are right, I think, to ask how the whole ecology could be prevented from self-destructing. A look at the actual ideas is in order.
fish-rides-bike t1_its7t8g wrote
And ironically the wrongest one. Maybe you didn’t want it explained, you wanted your preconceived answer affirmed. No scientists have said anything about unlimited economic growth in their capacity as scientists. Thermodynamics is not a relevant consideration when looking at resource abundance. And population is not “bumping up against” resource limits or global warming — its plateauing, mostly due to contraception, education, prosperity, and female independence.
Economic growth does not require more physical resources. For example, the computer gaming industry contributes significantly to American GDP, but uses negligible physical resources. The digital music industry — same.
Due to technology and language we can go on accumulation knowledge and thus growth forever. Ancient empires collapsed due to lack of knowledge
candymannequin OP t1_itsmjy9 wrote
I like a lot of the answers. enjoying the variety. thanks for adding to the conversation.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments