It\’s not as if this hasn\’t been explained enough times.
For one thing, the model used by the MIT scientists didn\’t make precise \”predictions\”, but projected what was likely to happen if certain trends continued, allowing for \”adjustable assumptions\” of resource use. Their real finding was not that collapse was likely to occur by a particular year, but that population and the global economy would contract rapidly after peaking. The only circumstances under which some kind of stabilisation, rather than collapse, was achieved, was constraining population and the scale of the economy.
Models and reality are not the same thing. But – strikingly given the relatively crude computer modelling available at the time – the MIT projections have proved remarkably accurate. Today they can be checked against decades of actual data. Population, industrial output, pollution and food consumption all track the lines in the model.
Quite true you ignorant tosspot. Except, of course, for one thing that hasn\’t come true: we\’ve not run out of resources, have we? For resources are not some fixed endowment with which we start. Resources are things that we create, manufacture, by inventing new technologies which do so.
I have yet to see any figures to illustrate how growth in rich countries can, in perpetuity, be compatible with environmental limits,
I have explained it to you several times. Are you thick or just not listening?
One thing is sure: advocates of growth need to be able to show not only that environmental impact can be cancelled out by efficiency and resource substitution, but that deep, absolute reductions in resource use can be achieved simultaneously, and that such gains can be made year, after year, after year, ad infinitum.
No, we don\’t. We need to be able to show that economic growth is compatible with whatever resource constraints that you specify.
There are many problematic issues to do with growth that can\’t be covered here. Clinging to growth, however, suffocates the imagination needed to devise more convivial ways to share a finite planet. At the very least, and with so much evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof now lies heavily on those who reject the original message of the Limits report, for them to demonstrate how, and under what circumstances, we could possibly enjoy \”growth forever\” in a finite world.
And here it is once again you miserable cretin.
So, let us imagine that steady state economy of Herman Daly. We abstract no new resources, at least no resources unsustainably, from nature. We recycle everything and use only renewable energy etc. We\’re stuck with just what we\’ve already dug out of the ground, we\’re not going to mine any new mountains etc.
Excellent, now, in this scenario can we have economic growth? Sure we can, for as long as technology allows us to make more with the same resources or use fewer resources to make the same things.
For example, gold plating on computer boards used to be 200 nm. Now it\’s more like 2 nm. So, out of that available stock of gold (and recall, something like 99.9% of all gold ever mined is still available for use, we\’re missing pretty much only grave goods and the stuff that weathers off onion domes) we can now make 200 times as many computer boards as we could only 30 years ago.
Or, if you prefer, we can make the same nuber of computer boards and we can still make more gold teeth for rap artists.
We have had economic growth, either way, because we now have either more computer boards or the same number plus gold teeth.
And this is without even thinking about the definition of economic growth, a rise in GDP. GDP is an increase in the value of goods and services as valued at market prices. Perhaps resource constraints do, or at some point will, mean that more goods cannot be produced. But why would that limit the value we can add through advancing technology?
And what\’s so intensely annoying about your and your bloviations Mr. Simms is that this is all explained in your Ur text, the works of Herman Daly as above. He says that a steady state economy must move from the consumption of more resources to a stable consumption, to a resource limited mode of production. But he also points out that we can still increase value add and we can thus still have economic growth. He calls the latter qualitative growth, the former quantitative growth.
Shrug, he\’s just using different names for absolutely standard economic thinking. Even in a resource constrained world economic growth will continue at the rate of technological advancement.
And you\’re just to dim to understand what your own fucking Bible is telling you.
Be Gone, sod off, trouble us no more!