Migrant watch (merged topic)

[Little John]

In the medium to long term I do not think that is true. There is clearly a correlation and it is a challenge, but not impossible, to have economic growth without using more energy.

Please explain how economic growth in principle, never mind practice, at the systemic level, is possible in the absence of increased access to and consumption of energy/other key resources. I am assuming, here, that the first thing you would need to define is "economic growth" since my understanding of it precludes the above.

In principal economic growth could continue without increased access and consumption of energy etc. by us writing each other increasingly expensive computer software... or music etc. Our material consumption could be steady state wiliest the non-material economy booms... indefinitely.

No, that is not primary economic growth (at a systemic level). That is tertiary economic redistribution. They are not the same thing.

At a systemic level, the only type of economic activity that increases real wealth is primary economic activity. This can then be leveraged upwards as well as redistributed with secondary economic activity. Finally, tertiary economic activity is very nearly wholly redistributive with possibly some portion of leverage. It is, however, not primary wealth creating at a systemic level. I am taking into account the entire planetary economic activity when using the term "systemic".

If you want to see how the kind of mangled economic thinking you have just put forward works in reality, look no further than the state of the real estate market, since that is a real world example of what happens if you think you can grow an economy on the back of bullshit..

[clv101]

Well, increasingly expensive computer software is counted as GDP and reported as economic growth in the UK today. I don't really know what to mean by 'real wealth'.

[Little John]

Well, increasingly expensive computer software is counted as GDP and reported as economic growth in the UK today. I don't really know what to mean by 'real wealth'.

Are you seriously trying to make out you do not understand this most essential point about economic activity? That computer software has been purchased with wealth that has been generated elsewhere. In other words, it is merely redistributing it. Of course, if that wealth has come from another country, then the country selling the software has engaged in "primary" economic activity insofar as their own sub-systemic economy is concernd. But, at the whole (planetary) system level, all that has happened, is that some of the wealth has been moved from one part of the system to another. That is not economic growth at the whole systemic level. That is tertiary redistributive economic activity.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[biffvernon]

it is a challenge, but not impossible, to have economic growth without using more energy.

Indeed, we just have to put a higher value on, say, jazz quartet output, and a lower value on, say, steel-making, and voilà, higher GDP and less energy used. But it's even better than that. The important thing is to switch away from fossil carbon fuel to solar (of which there is a continuous flux beyond far beyond our needs) and a switch from new steel-making to steel recycling, from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces and again we get GDP growth without wrecking the planet.

The uncoupling of GDP from fossil carbon is critical for human survival and while degrowth is a useful tool it's not the only one.

[UndercoverElephant]

The uncoupling of GDP from fossil carbon is critical for human survival and while degrowth is a useful tool it's not the only one.

"Human survival" is a misleading term here. The probability of the human race actually creating conditions so bad that nowhere at all is habitable and every single human dies (i.e. "the survival of the human race") is almost nil. And the probability of the human race getting its social/political/economic/technological act together to the extent that there is no significant die-off (i.e. "the survival of all humans, until they die of other causes") before the human population stabilises at a considerably lower level than today's is similarly close to nil. Neither of those things are going to happen. What is going to happen, is something between those two extremes - significant die-off but not extinction. So the question we should be asking is "at what level is the human population likely to stabilise", and the answer will be connected to another question: "how badly are we going to screw up the climate and the ecosystem before we stop having a significant, additional negative effect?"

However, regardless of the precise answer to either of the above questions, "degrowth" really is "the only tool". Or to be more precise, without degrowth, everything else we try to do is pissing in the wind. And before you try to muddy the waters yet again, that means reductions in both population levels and the primary economic activity that sustains that population and its living standards.

The human operation on this planet must get smaller. It must do, because the ecosystem and climate are being irreversibly altered at the current level. Therefore, "degrowth" is unavoidable. It will happen. It is not a tool; it is an inevitability.

[kenneal - lagger]

...............

The human operation on this planet must get smaller. It must do, because the ecosystem and climate are being irreversibly altered at the current level. Therefore, "degrowth" is unavoidable. It will happen. It is not a tool; it is an inevitability.

It will probably happen by accident rather than design, though. Like most cock ups will will not be under control of any sort.

[johnhemming2]

The uncoupling of GDP from fossil carbon is critical for human survival and while degrowth is a useful tool it's not the only one.

"Human survival" is a misleading term here. The probability of the human race actually creating conditions so bad that nowhere at all is habitable and every single human dies (i.e. "the survival of the human race") is almost nil.

This shows my challenge with Biff's statements. He makes statements that are obviously untrue through exaggeration. Does he believe what he says or does he not really think through what he is saying?

I don't mind so much the irrational moralising as that is in fact quite common.

[biffvernon]

The uncoupling of GDP from fossil carbon is critical for human survival and while degrowth is a useful tool it's not the only one.

This shows my challenge with Biff's statements. He makes statements that are obviously untrue through exaggeration. Does he believe what he says or does he not really think through what he is saying?

I don't mind so much the irrational moralising as that is in fact quite common.

I don't think what I wrote was untrue or exaggerated. I do believe what I wrote. I do think through what I write (usually).

If GDP is not uncoupled from fossil carbon burning then I do not think it can continue to grow indefinitely. Human survival would come to and end, thus ending all GDP.

Degrowth is indeed a useful tool, and I won't argue against it being necessary, though that's a stronger statement and should perhaps be made after GDP is defined. I'm very much in the degrowth camp but acknowledge that if GDP is suitably defined and constrained (as I suggested by allowing jazz quartet output to dominate over steel-making) then GDP growth futures might be plausible.

GDP degrowth is not the only tool in ensuring a flourishing civilisation. Other things are also needed.

Which part, John, is untrue, exaggerated or merely irrational moralising?

[johnhemming2]

Human survival does not depend upon growth. You really should know that.

Answer a question: What is is that causes everyone to die?

[clv101]

Human survival would come to and end, thus ending all GDP.

This bit specifically is meaningless without more detail.

Do you mean humans becoming extinct or just a 90-99% die-off and collapse of global civilisation, two very different things with very different probabilities. It's also meaningless without some notion of timescales. In a billion years the species will be extinct, tomorrow it won't be. There's a PDF of 'human survival coming to an end', zero probability tonight, zero probability in a billion years time ('cos it'll already have happened) with a peak sometime in between.

I don't subscribe to the idea that climate change, nuclear exchange or anything else short of a really big asteroid could actually make the whole planet uninhabitable - humans have to be just about the most adaptable creatures on the planet, small pockets would find a way to eke out a living as long as there was somewhere warmer than -40C and cooler than 40C and the sun was still bright enough to drive photosynthesis.

[johnhemming2]

I don't subscribe to the idea that climate change, nuclear exchange or anything else short of a really big asteroid could actually make the whole planet uninhabitable - humans have to be just about the most adaptable creatures on the planet, small pockets would find a way to eke out a living as long as there was somewhere warmer than -40C and cooler than 40C and the sun was still bright enough to drive photosynthesis.

That is a rational position with which I agree.

[UndercoverElephant]

Human survival does not depend upon growth. You really should know that.

Answer a question: What is is that causes everyone to die?

Dumb question.

The answer is "being abandoned by natural selection, as it abandons all organisms at the point of successful reproduction." We were designed by evolution, but the moment we've passed on our genes we have fulfilled our evolutionary purpose and the rest of our lifespan is determined by how long the biological mechanisms designed to get us to that point continue to function even though they've served their purpose and are no longer subject to "evolution-derived maintenance".

I am guessing that isn't the answer you were after, but it is the correct answer. Organisms that don't age are biologically possible, but not if the architect is natural selection.

[biffvernon]

Human survival would come to and end, thus ending all GDP.

This bit specifically is meaningless without more detail.

Do you mean humans becoming extinct or just a 90-99% die-off and collapse of global civilisation, two very different things with very different probabilities. It's also meaningless without some notion of timescales. In a billion years the species will be extinct, tomorrow it won't be. There's a PDF of 'human survival coming to an end', zero probability tonight, zero probability in a billion years time ('cos it'll already have happened) with a peak sometime in between.

I don't subscribe to the idea that climate change, nuclear exchange or anything else short of a really big asteroid could actually make the whole planet uninhabitable - humans have to be just about the most adaptable creatures on the planet, small pockets would find a way to eke out a living as long as there was somewhere warmer than -40C and cooler than 40C and the sun was still bright enough to drive photosynthesis.

I don't disagree with that but your point assumes that undecoupled GDP growth halts - which it undoubtedly would do before 100% of humanity had died. My point is that IF GDP growth continues coupled to fossil carbon burning THEN we go extinct. That won't happen. Therefore either GDP will degrow AND/OR it will become decoupled. I think AND is more likely than OR, but either way the species is likely to survive for a good while yet.

[biffvernon]

I don't subscribe to the idea that climate change, nuclear exchange or anything else short of a really big asteroid could actually make the whole planet uninhabitable - humans have to be just about the most adaptable creatures on the planet, small pockets would find a way to eke out a living as long as there was somewhere warmer than -40C and cooler than 40C and the sun was still bright enough to drive photosynthesis.

That is a rational position with which I agree.

So do I.

[Little John]

Human survival does not depend upon growth. You really should know that.

Answer a question: What is is that causes everyone to die?

Dumb question.

The answer is "being abandoned by natural selection, as it abandons all organisms at the point of successful reproduction." We were designed by evolution, but the moment we've passed on our genes we have fulfilled our evolutionary purpose and the rest of our lifespan is determined by how long the biological mechanisms designed to get us to that point continue to function even though they've served their purpose and are no longer subject to "evolution-derived maintenance".

I am guessing that isn't the answer you were after, but it is the correct answer. Organisms that don't age are biologically possible, but not if the architect is natural selection.

Funnily enough, as a thought experiment, I have often wondered if the simplest way to extend life-span is to simply steadily raise the age at which an organism is allowed to reproduce. If this was continued over many generations, natural selection would favour those organisms whose phenotypes were kept well maintained up to the point of reproduction. Whilst such an experiment would be unethical in humans and, given the time needed to carry out such an experiment, impractical in any long-ish lived organism such as a mammal, it might nevertheless be possible to demonstrate the principle with a very short lived organism such as a species of insect.

I wonder if it has been tried?