When will the growth meme end? People find out the GDP grew at 1% for a year and start freaking out, or they find out the fertility rate is under 2.0 and they think civilization is coming to an end. Economic growth was only around 0.0125% per year for the vast, vast majority of human history, and population growth was borderline stagnant before fossil fuels.
When it become unsustainable. You are lucky to live in growth stage instead of everyone kills your friends for drop of water stage.
Slower growth is bad, how is this not obvious?
>>892996
I don't understand.
Are your friend ants?
Most of my friends are mostly water.
So what happened after the black death that skyrocketed mankind?
>>893017
Columbus discovered fossil fuels
>>892996
>when it becomes unsustainable
Will this meme ever die? Developing nations are still industrializing. Once they do, birth rates in those countries will likely decline
>>893024
> birth rates in those countries will likely decline
So growth will end?
>>892993
>Having a higher standard of living is a bad thing
Wut? In theory economic growth will slow when we hit the maximum capabilities of technology but who knows when that will be. Until then, yay for more and stuff.
>>893029
Shitty countries still have high birth rates.
>>893017
Industrial revolution.
>>893024
yeah we just need to wait for Africa's population to go from 1.1 billion currently, to 5 billion by the 22nd century.
While India, SEAsia, and China will have 6-8 billion.
Europe will have 1.5 billion, with native europeans being the minority.
NAmerica over a billion
South America approaching a billion.
Australia and NZ will be the only places left on Earth not overcrowded.
Of course that is if fresh water suitable for agriculture and drinking does not run out first. Causing a massive fucking shit-fest of war. As major powers slaughter rival nations' populations. While also securing remaining fresh water supplies.
>>893231
Too bad no current model has global population getting anywhere close to that number. At the current trend humans will start to level off around 9-10 billion people.
Impossible for everyone to have the same standards of living as people in West. We'll eventually reach the tipping point for what the Earth's capable of providing for if we haven't already.
BRING ON THE FAMINE AND PESTILENCE ALREADY DAMN WHAT YOU WAITING FOR
>>893265
oh we past that mark a long time ago.
We're all going to be bean eaters, living in commie blocks, and riding public transit. Well, except for the rich.
>>893017
medical advances!
>>893017
>climate got warmer
>europe discovered the Americas, again, and stayed.
>crop rotation
>potatoes and other new world crops
>huge improvements in sanitation
>synthetic fertilizers
>places all over the new world covered in tons of bird shit. used for fertilizer.
>mechanization of farming
>health care left the leeches and trepanning phase. went into the penicillin and vaccine phase.
>>892999
It is not necessarily.
>>893035
>GDP growth = higher standard of living
Nope
>>892993
The model of the joint stock company relies on increasing investment delivering increasing return on investment. When a company fails to continue doing so investment stops, and with that comes downsizing and perhaps even bankruptcy, releasing large numbers of workers into the job market to compete with newcomers.
Stagnant or no growth in the past worked because most labor was subsistence level or dominated by an impermeable, closed class whose fortunes relied upon the status quo. Stagnant or no growth today means not enough investment is going around to accommodate the growing labor pool who base their whole livelihoods around working for a company.
Most people are no longer farmers, hunters, and shepherds supporting themselves anymore, taking odd jobs or gambling with grain speculators for extra money to buy some land or luxuries if we're lucky. So it's either high growth to accommodate the urban working class, or it's back to bread and circuses Roman style.
>>892999
not at all, in the economy anyway. There are 4 periods in the economic cycle growth, boom, slowdown, slump. An economy wants to keep their economy growing at a constant tepid of 2% or so because a boom is followed by a recession of some sort. So the longer you can go with tepid growth the better.
>>892993
That's because the financial, economical and political system we've built is unsustainable without growing population and GDP.
>>893299
>climate got warmer
In between 14th and 19th century there's so called little ice age, but yeah, it did help with population growth(just in little different way than you think).
>>892996
Yeah, right. In a few decades we'll probably discovere a way to quickly purify massive amounts of water. It's not like water is going anywhere, it's just dirty.
>>893265
>the economy is a zero-sum game
When will this meme end?
>>893024
Cool
Too bad all the resources will be gone by then.
>>894827
What do you mean "all the resources will be gone by then"? Also, do you honestly think that using natural resources is the only way for a country to develop?
>>894942
>Also, do you honestly think that using natural resources is the only way for a country to develop?
Ultimately, yes. The tertiary sector is mostly dependent on the secondary sector, and the secondary sector is entirely dependent on the primary sector/
>>893023
Pocahontas invented the computer before the white man stole it
>>894945
Yes, Hong Kong is a great example of that.
>>894980
Hong Kong depends heavily on international trade. It's not growing its economy into itself. If resources stopped being available to buy, they would collapse.
>>894789
unless you come up with a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics, it literally is
>>894990
That's why trade exists. Food and water will not disappear from the world. Recycling can also do wonders.
The problem is we're in a competition. 1% GDP growth or 1 child/woman would be fine if there weren't countries with 7% GDP growth or 7 children/woman.
>>893819
That's quite literally what it's means as GDP is money per person.
>>895083
>Recycling can also do wonders.
Considering modern economies need constant growth and recycling with efficiency>1(I'd even say >0.9 but w/e) is impossible it doesn't mean shit.
>>895137
GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
What you're thinking about is Gross Domestic Product per Capita.
Leave the future to us friend :)
>>895149
You do realise that resource consumption doesn't have to rise together with growth, right?
>>895181
>You do realise that resource consumption doesn't have to rise together with growth, right?
Resources like water - maybe yes, maybe not.
Resources like aluminium, silver, chromium, steel and oil? I'll leave it up to you.
>>895187
Most of those can be recycled. If they can't, we'll find subsitutes. Since Malthus people have always said the same thing: "population is going to keep rising and we won't have enough resources to sustain them!" Well, guess what. Birth rates are decreasing while resource availability has never been higher.
>>895267
Except Malthus was talking in perspective of few centuries and with Chromium for instance we're talking about decades, so prognosis like that is more accurate.
>>895187
By the time we run out of those, it's highly likely that we will either:
a: be farming asteroids and other planets for them
b: be recycling them to near-infinity
c: be having a stable population meaning demand won't be increasing
d: be replacing them with other resources.
Malthus was wrong 200 years ago and he is even more wrong today.
>>895181
This just means the Americans are really dirty, like Europeans now, the waste water a more condensed toxic brew. Colorado river doesn't even make it to the ocean, get real, never gonna last. Basically textbook overshoot.
>>895181
A lot of that change in water use has to do with globalization sending heavy water demand industries to other countries.
You can't just look at one country.
>>895292
>demand won't be increasing
The average American expends 80 times more CO2 than the average Rwandan.
>>895330
>CO2
Literally irrelevant. The earth expends 23094823589072345 times more than humans could ever dream of.
>>895330
co2 emissions are already decreasing in most of the developing world due to more efficient technology.
>>895346
> what is an equilibrium
>>895355
*developed, not developing
>>893249
But thats assuming cultures that traditionally have many children start having few, and that and largely depends on upon standards of living improving over time.
Which in those societies standard of living hasn't improved, and isn't likely to improve if resources are spread thinner than they are now.
>>895083
Recycling isn't 100% effective there's always loss of material, or material that is unrecyclable
>>895396
> assuming
>>895355
Proof?
Because last I checked China and india was still putting out a shit load of C02 through coal, and that hasn't decreased, and they're starting to import coal from other countries.
>>895401
You tell certain Muslim sects and many tradtional african cultures that putting out children en masse is a bad thing.
And part of your curve is totally dependent on standards of living improving. Many American families were having as many children as possible becuase they were needed as farm hands and due to the fact infant mortality was so high.
You reduce resources per person and per infant, infant mortality will increase.
>>895403
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35029962
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/07122015/global-carbon-emissions-rising-decades-decline-2015-study-climate-change-paris
It is true that India and possibly China have yet to peak, but the more efficient technology usage that is already being implemented in the West is undoubtedly going to affect them as well in time, plus I think it's fair to assume that the technology is only going to become more efficient
>>895401
>Projecting
There should be a large die off by 2050, that graph assumes a lot.
Also, trusting third world, Asian statistics and census data.
>>895419
> dependent on standards of living improving
Good thing that standards of living are on the increase in most developing countries*, whether you measure by HDI, GDP per capita or whichever other way you choose to do it. If they weren't, the discussion regarding ressource consumption would be pointless anyway, wouldn't it?
* This is of course not counting nations torn by civil war, various embargoes or hit by the current deflation of oil prices.
>>895426
the effecs that have caused the existing trends are only likely to exacerbate as peaceful third-world countries become richer and technology improves.
But you are of course free to provide statistics of your own that disagree
>>892996
How do you know he's not lucky to be an alien?
>>893249
do you think this planet can sustain 10 billion people? we already can't feed some of the millions on here now.
>>895401
>projecting
>>894527
my mistake, I was thinking about the medieval warm period.
>>895423
CO2 emissions are stagnant in the West.
Why? Because most of our heavy industry and oil production has been exported to third world countries.
CO2 stagnated in 2015 because of the commodity crash. Minining operations, especially oil, stopped temporarily.
Also, the world economy is growing half as fast today as it did 1999-2008.
CO2/GDP rates rose 1950-2010, and have stagnated because of technology.
But assuming the current lull will last is assuming a lot looking at past trends.
If the world economy was growing 5% per year, and oil demand sent the price up to $100 a barrel, CO2 emissions would rise.
Finally, many of the easy efficiency gains have been made. Dammng rivers, building wind power, solar farms, upgrading energy grids. Now the difficult efficiency gains will have to be made.
>>898229
You mean we still can't get free food to hundreds of millions of people.
Nonetheless, my point here>>898360
about CO2 shows that no amount of likely technology increases, slowing population growth, or demographic transitions will lead to a CO2 rate that keeps global warming from continuing at an unhealthy pace.
We can't just outgrow our environmental problems.
>>892999
Faster growth might be preferable, but nowadays a lot of Western countries are willing to sacrifice pretty much everything in exchange for a few more percentile on their GDP growth, and that is definitely not worth it.
Prime example would be Germany, which is an economical glass cannon because it didn't give a fuck about anything but exports and growth for the last decades. And now look at where that led.
>>893017
Glass, which allowed for the production of lenses, which in turn impacted all levels of society majorly, especially naval navigation.
It's often said that one of the major reason China didn't industrialize before Europe was because they had access to fine china/pottery, which meant that there was no great pressure to develop glass.
>>892993
2020s to 2030s.
>>895419
It fucking worked in blangladesh.
However that required non retarded Ngo's
>>898229
We can feed them though.
Just shitty transportation, storage and infrastructure.
>>899423
>It's often said
By who, and where can I read more on this idea about glass, and other arguments for clockwork?
It's so ridiculous to hear people say how Japan must increase it's birth rate or accept immigrants. Do they not realize that Japan is a small archipelago with almost 150 MILLION people on it already? Their minds are 100% focused on "MUH GDP", without considering anything else.
>>893017
The untermenchen died, giving way to the superior Übermenchen who, now with more resources at their disposal, started reforming the world.
>>892993
>borderline stagnant
lol, no.
>>901771
It's an experiment. 200 million is doable I think.
the purpose of life is reproduction and expansion. halting growth would be an obscenity against and the great meat sphere we are a part of.
