The fairy tale of eternal economic growth

I am surprised there is no thread on this one yet. I'd thought that Thunberg's speech at the UN would irritate the usual suspects. Now, I admit that she came across as too angry during her speech, but she is only 16. I would be thrilled if my kid could deliver a speech at the UN when he is 16 (in two years), although I don't see it happen .

In any case, does it really take a 16 year old kid from across the ocean, who is on the Autism spectrum, to speak out the truth:

"The fairy tale of eternal economic growth"

In contrast, politicians stumble over each other to promise higher growth numbers, 4%, 5% even 6%.... As if growth will solve all of our problems. Sure, it makes people feel good in the short term. In the long term, it leads to problems such as pollution, resource exhaustion, energy shortages etc. And that's not even speaking about the demands on ever growing productivity. A relatively normal growth of 3.5% means that productivity of workers will have to double in 20 years, and quadruple in 40 years. So, are people ready to work 4-times as hard/smart at the end of a 40 year work career?

It is funny that it is easy for us to see the perils of exponential growth when they are not good for us, for example a virus epidemic, or tumor growth. It is also easy to see the reason of why the exponential growth eventually comes to an end, because the virus runs out of victims to infect, or the tumor kills it's host. Why is it so difficult for us to see that exponential economic growth will result in the same end game for humanity? The truth is that nothing can grow forever in a closed system (earth). Why do we think that physical principle doesn't apply to our economy?

 

Are you espousing the anti capitalist teachings of Marx? What is your larger point?

 

Economic growth hides economic frailty. For example, many new business have grown too fast and exceeded both their manager's capacity to keep control and the financial balance of the company- and that usually results in bankruptcy. Economic growth allows debt levels to accumulate and seem tolerable and supportable, while in fact if the growth reverses, the debt will not- and become a tidal wave kind of crisis.

I think this applies to individuals, companies and nations, with the difference being how long it can continue without triggering it's own failure.

However, just try and sell the average voter on frugality, economic prudence, being debt free or capping your debt service expenses- and it will be no sale, because that also means scaling back on the things they benefit from and think somebody else is paying for. The big picture and the future it holds has a hard time competing with the right now, and free benefits.

Looks like I agree with you.

 

My larger point is that exponential growth in a closed system has to eventually come to a halt. That's a physical principle, has nothing to do with Marx.

The other point is that it takes a smart 16 year old, on the spectrum, kid (Greta Thunberg) to say it out loud, whereas our politicians and media don't want to acknowledge it. They'd rather keep the sheep in line with the "more growth is better" dogma, that apparently you are not allowed to challenge, if you don't want to be called a Marxist, socialist, or any other derogatory name.

BTW: I know you are better than to refer to Marx in the first reply to this thread.

 

I agree, however, it is not just the average voter. The politicians are perfectly happy to keep the debt game going, knowing full well that it will eventually stop. Everyone just likes to kick the can down the road...

 

When there is no further economic growth you apply for a job in your youth, and if you get the job and if the powers that be say you are still qualified when the person holding the job dies or retires, then you go to work and start earning a paycheck.

 

double post

 

While I can agree with that, surely you understand that if any politician stood up for fiscal responsibility in a realistic way, that would entail significant impact on the way taxes are implemented and money is distributed, and that means belt-tightening for everyone. IF you can't get elected- you can't make responsible changes. From that perspective, a candidate backing true economic balance (and telling people the truth about it) hasn't got a prayer of getting elected.

Politicians are in a situation where (by kicking the can) the end consequence will occur after they are retired- and fall on our grandchildren or thier children. Short term thinking- If the consequences don't fall on me, the issue is less critical. Bad perspective.

 

Aren't we all just kicking the can down the road? The universe itself? Nothing is eternal and humanity, like the everything else will end eventually. Will it be asteroid, disease, famine, or will will kill ourselves? Who knows but it will happen - might as well kick that can as far as we can.

 

The extra pollution we're seeing is due to people like her, women, entering the work force. With more women in the workforce there are more income and more demand for goods. She should look at that source of the problem.

 

Yes, short term thinking. I wouldn't be opposed to pay as you go. But that would need to hold for everything else people do in life. For example, net zero homes are the equivalent of pay as you go, i.e. you can't steal fossil fuel reserves the world has stored for us in billions of years, leaving our grand children deprived of this valuable resource.

The problem is that growth is so ingrained into our psyche that we cannot think beyond it. Even at my university, administrators only think a program is doing well if it grows. If you don't add more students, faculty, lab space, research funding, then you are called "stagnant", used as a derogatory term. Absolutely incredible.

 

That is true, but we think of ourselves as an intelligent species who can logically think. Most likely, however, from a 10,000 feet above perspective, we are more like bacteria that mindlessly grow exponentially in a petri dish, until they run out of resources -- and then most of them die. I'd try to avoid that fate, but maybe it is not possible.

 

The kid in question was likely reciting what he or she had read somewhere. It is an interesting subject though. If humans are like cancer that has to grow to survive will that eventually lead to our killing the host and our ultimate demise as a species? Here's the rub though. If you want modern life growth is imminent and unavoidable. Just as in business if you aren't growing your dying.
So what's the answer? Back to the stone age and hunter gatherer societies such as inhabited the America's before Europeans got here? You would think but maybe not. Even those peoples had extremely successful civilizations that thrived and grew and ultimately collapsed from over taxing their resources.
Maybe we are just like every other species on earth that seem to ebb and flow in population according to weather and predation. Rabbits for instance have periods where they abound and then corresponding numbers of predators have and can feed lots of babies so their population also booms until there are so many of them they kill most all of the rabbits which leads to mass starvation among predators and then their population collapses.
I see the same eventual outcome for mankind as we over populate and over tax our environment and systematically kill off other species and pollute our environment. Just as the once thriving Anasazi of America's Southwest once rose and fell and disappeared into obscurity so shall all mankind but this time it will be world wide and population along with all its technology will collapse and a few survivors will start the cycle over again with a return to hunter gatherer societies and then farming and then technology and then.........

 

I dont know anything about this specific 16 year old speaking, but when you refer to the futility of eternal economic growth, Marx is the obvious reference point because that is the cornerstone of all of his anti capitalist teachings. I didn't bring up Marx as some sort of bombastic retort where I am calling you a Marxist, rather I mentioned him because this very topic is central to his teachings. Perhaps you don't reflexively understand the connection, but my guess would be that whomever crafted that 16 year old's speech is fully aware of that connection, and is likely a supporter of his mindset.

Can economic growth last forever? Whenever someone uses a word like forever, of course nearly nothing can last forever. Can it last for another hundred years and beyond? Absolutely. As long as output per capita remains stable which is a reasonable assumption, population growth alone drives economic growth. At some point, population density becomes too great and it will be forced to shrink. At that point, economic growth will likely cease. The claim that growth of 3.5% means that workers need to double their output is only true in a model where population size remains the same. We both know that is not the case.

 

What are the other options for the bacteria even if they knew.

 

Catch here is that what we do determines how far "far" is. If we do worse, demise gets a lot closer- and we directly destroy ourselves. If we do well, we may still be here when the sun collapses... or by then, have colonized another inhabitable planet. The fact we don't know when the world will end or who/what may be responsible for our demise does not seem a justifiable reason to fail to try.

Those who wish to check out today have that option.

 

There is a vast difference in being able to foresee a distant consequence and being willing to forego the short-term gains that give you advantage right now. People making decisions are often willing to change the weight of something they know to be true when the consequence is distant or can be procrastinated out of site for the moment. IF we were wise- that would not be the case.

I used to tell people in a class I taught on growth and mental management this: "Today is the tomorrow we failed to plan for yesterday." And, that will be true of every day of your life unless you choose change it.

 

Apparently that we should all go back to living as hunter gatherers

 

I largely agree with your post but I have two quibbles. Increased productivity does not necessarily mean people work harder, but they have better tools, i.e. automation.

Economic growth is required if the population is increasing and you want to maintain the same standard of living (sort of a necessity in a democracy). This is why I oppose immigration. Immigration is championed by those who wish to foster economic growth.

Also, Marxism was predicated on the idea of economic growth. The idea was that capitalism strangled economic growth and socialism would unleash the forces of production.

One last point. Malthus made similar predictions two hundred years ago. This Thunberg is not espousing anything especially novel.

 

I never said we shouldn't try. What I am saying is that we should kick it as far as possible but not at the expense of living as best we can. And in the final analysis, no matter how far we kick the can it will be nothing but a blip on the cosmic time line. We are bacteria in a petri dish.

 

That would be the obvious answer but nobody is willing to do so willingly

 

And you think leftist really care about whether we will willing accept their commands?

 

Did you watch her speech? I don't think it was written for her, it was far too emotional and angry for that.

I am a big fan of models of population dynamics. The Lotka-Volterra model is simple, but elegant in its assumptions and predicts predator-prey dynamics quite well. It is likely that humanity is on the path of the predator species that becomes too large in numbers, then eliminating all prey -- and then they die. My point is, do we have to walk open eyed into this scenario, as if we had no other choice? Or will we be able to change the inevitable, as intelligent human beings? I think it is the former. Why? Because humans are inherently programmed to want more and more. We want our children to have better lives than ourselves. That usually means more stuff (larger houses, cars, more creature comforts), i.e. increased resource use. The growth is built into our DNA.

 

Obviously, no coherent debate is possible when thinking cannot go beyond RW talking points. Truly closed-minded.

 

Not at all. Man is a creator, if we don't grow and create we slowly die. Unfortunately as we create we destroy but there's no stopping us.