The laws of supply and demand are then when supply starts decreasing the price goes up, which decreases quantity demanded. When price goes up, the incentive to find alternatives, or to make a more efficient use of finite supplies goes up as well.

Here is a youtube video that explains it better then I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

how does that have anything to do with it? Yes, i understand the flawed notion of supply and demand. The physical limitations of the universe are what is in question here.

Entropy always increases. Regardless of what your economic theory suggests.

what do you mean? When resources become scarce, we make better use of them. How is that unrelated?

It isn't a myth. Infinite economic growth isn't sustainable, nor is there a logical reason to crave it. A society with no economic growth, (a constant ability to produce products an services) could be perfectly content, so long as there were enough products/services to go around.

orathaic very eloquently put why it is a myth unless you focus on the physical limitations of the universe (in which case a growthless economy is unsustainable as well so it is a moot criticism). A point also worth mentioning is that the current most popular measure of economic growth, real GDP, can be quite easily gamed to create a GDP growth without an actual increase in economic activity. Although that's an accounting technicality.

It is incredibly naive to think that market forces can save society from resource and energy scarcity. It takes decades of research, infrastructure development and policy making to change our energy source makeup. It's not a trivial process of, "oh, oil is expensive now? Lets quickly throw up a few hundred megawatts of solar cells"

sigh. lack of economic knowledge from the last 3 posts.

@Damain: Infinite economic growth is sustainable, wealth can be created. 100 years ago, nobody could have predicted how rich we are today and in 50s and 70s everyone was talking about how we would see declines in world population and reseoucres depeltion within 15 years. both of them were wrong.

Mathus didn't support the industrial revolution because he thought everyone moving from farms to cities would lead to famine, he was wrong.

watch the youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y
its 100% fact.

My other suggestion is to read the both the rational optimist, it goes into more detail about my general argument.

@Ulytau: Your ignoring technological growth. Based on the technology of the 1800s we couldn't sustain 2 billion people on the planet, based on technology of the 1950s we couldn't sustain 4 billion, based on current technology we can't sustain 9 billion, but when 9 billion come, we will be better at farming etc. and will sustain it. The fact of the matter is, every time in history people have predicted the free market being unstustainable, they were wrong.

ITS A MYTH!

@Yonni: YES THEY CAN! Every year renewable energy gets cheaper while Oil and Coal get more expensive due to scarcity and technological development, in a free market, we switch over the renewable energy when its better then oil and coal, not prematurely. You'll find that it will lead to the most economic growth and is plausible in the free market.

Exxon Mobile has, for 7 straight years, been the most profitable company in the world, they have a lot riding on cheap oil, once oil becomes a scarce resource (we have 1.4 trillion barrels of resources left, oil isn't going anywhere) there not going to suddenly be like 'oh shit, we didn't see this coming' no Exxon is run by some of the most intelligent people in the world, they are already investing hugely into solar and wind technology. When the time comes that oil is no longer the cheapest and best energy resource I can guarantee you that Exxon will be switching to others.

"Mathus didn't support the industrial revolution because he thought everyone moving from farms to cities would lead to famine, he was wrong."

Malthus.

"orathaic very eloquently put why it is a myth"

"ITS A MYTH!"

Before getting an actual economic degree, you might start with something simpler, like reading comprehension.

Yes, because correcting my typos brings merit to your argument. *sarcasm*

It doesn't matter what typos I made, what matters is the facts.

I wouldn't correct your typos if you wouldn't acuse me of lack of economic knowledge by virtue of your reading comprehension issues. Quid pro quo.

Please don't derail. The discussion has been very interesting and instructive.

I believe ulytau was referring to the fact that you misrepresented his case. He was agreeing with you.

As for your actual argument, it's still wrong. I'll get into my case (why it's unsustainable) in a moment after I deal with your logical error.

" nobody could have predicted how rich we are today and in 50s and 70s everyone was talking about how we would see declines in world population and reseoucres depeltion within 15 years. both of them were wrong.

Mathus didn't support the industrial revolution because he thought everyone moving from farms to cities would lead to famine, he was wrong."

This in foolish line of reasoning. Equivalent to saying, well: the nuclear plant didn't blow up the last time, so I guess we shouldn't worry about that ever happening.

Yes, we can learn from the past, however failed predictions in the past, can only suggest we should entertain reasonable scepticism of future claims, it cannot suggest that we deny the possibility of the claim in the first place.

With that out of the way, we can address the impossibility of infinite growth.

I did watch the video like you asked. And I don't disagree with the concept that costs incentivize changes, what I disagree with is the infinity loop it suggests. Yes, you can find more oil as current reserves run out however there is still a limited quantity of that particular resource. It might not be tomorrow, but eventually we will run out of oil. And you know what, as you say, by then we might have an alternative for oil, or we might have a way to turn all the toys in landfills into oil, or what have you.

There are three problems with this infinite looping of resources.
One it assumes that with sufficiently advanced technology any form of matter can be converted into another, it assumes there are no "dead end" states. States from which we can no longer reuse the material.
Two it assumes that the earth is infinitely exploitable, what I mean by this, is that it assumes that the space on earth is infinite and that changing the situation on will not dramatically alter the earth itself. In the same way that our reckless actions are increasing the content of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can alter areas of the earth to be unusable. For example swathes of productive land turning into dessert. Or the collapsing of land in China due to a depletion of their aquifers.
Three, it assumes any changes will happen slowly/predictably, such that we have time to come up with solutions. This won't always be the case.

4 years ago I was diagnosed with dyslexia, I fully admit that my spelling at times is crap.

but I agree with zmaj, lets look at the economic fact and theory, not how many typos I made.

You can I suppose claim all my concerns are simply a lack of faith in science to fix all our problems as they crop up. And I suppose that is true. I don't believe we have the power to do anything. And someday we'll bump up against that limit, to catastrophic consequences.

Better to live a good life within one's means, than to ever overreach.

"I believe ulytau was referring to the fact that you misrepresented his case. He was agreeing with you. "
If that was his central message then yeah, my reading really did fail me

"This in foolish line of reasoning. Equivalent to saying, well: the nuclear plant didn't blow up the last time, so I guess we shouldn't worry about that ever happening.

Yes, we can learn from the past, however failed predictions in the past, can only suggest we should entertain reasonable scepticism of future claims, it cannot suggest that we deny the possibility of the claim in the first place. "
no its not, because your looking at one case, we are looking at thousands of cases spread out over 200 years.

"I did watch the video like you asked. And I don't disagree with the concept that costs incentivize changes, what I disagree with is the infinity loop it suggests. Yes, you can find more oil as current reserves run out however there is still a limited quantity of that particular resource. It might not be tomorrow, but eventually we will run out of oil. And you know what, as you say, by then we might have an alternative for oil, or we might have a way to turn all the toys in landfills into oil, or what have you. "
For the case of oil we now have 64 years left of conventional oil right now.
If we incorporate shale oil then we have over 2000 years of oil left. Oil isn't going anywhere, however we are running out of cheap oil spots and having to move to more expensive higher risk oil reserves (like in the gulf of mexico). That is why the price of oil is going up, at the same time, alternatives are decreasing and soon we will switch over.

"One it assumes that with sufficiently advanced technology any form of matter can be converted into another, it assumes there are no "dead end" states. States from which we can no longer reuse the material."
Your right I am assuming there is no dead end states, mainly because past examples are so few and rare, yet we are some how assuming that suddenly we will hit plenty. Every year computer chips get smaller, can store more data on them, and are cheaper to make.
We can look at thousands of advancements in the communication industry.
Food (adjusted for inflation) is cheaper now then at any time in history despite having to feed more people.
We are getting more efficient at dumping garbage.
As of 2009, the only consumer product that (adjusted for inflation) was more expensive now then it was 60 years ago were cars. But bear in mind that the car today is far superior to the cars of 60 years ago.
We are no where near scarcity of any resource. We just don't know how to use most resources at our disposal.

"You can I suppose claim all my concerns are simply a lack of faith in science to fix all our problems as they crop up. And I suppose that is true. I don't believe we have the power to do anything. And someday we'll bump up against that limit, to catastrophic consequences.

Better to live a good life within one's means, than to ever overreach."
your philosophy breeds stagnation. The most recent examples of a government that practices that philosophy was the Ming dynasty and Edo period in China and Japan respectively.

History frowned upon them, you may give the argument that its going to be different this time but why should it?

"no its not, because your looking at one case, we are looking at thousands of cases spread out over 200 years."

That actually doesn't matter. The logical problem is related the the impossibility of a negative proof. You can't prove that we won't run out of resources. Because it could always still happen.

Even though past examples are few and rare, the fact that they exist mean that dead end states are possible. Even if we reach them slowly dead end states will hamper progress slowly but surely, and it will reduce the net amount of resources available.

Yes, food has gotten cheaper, partially due to techniques which produce massive amounts of food very cheaply.

More efficient or not we are still dumping it. The only model I can think of where truly infinite growth is possible is a system in which all resources are re-useable, without loss of material.

But yes, we are not near scarcity, we are however nearing scarcity, the world is far less lush and resources are less abundant than they once were. Are there plenty left? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't consider the decline of our accessible stock. No.

Also, why is a society of infinite growth even desirable?

"Your [sic] right I am assuming there is [sic] no dead end states, mainly because past examples are so few and rare, yet we are some how assuming that suddenly we will hit plenty. Every year computer chips get smaller, can store more data on them, and are cheaper to make."
I love that you use this as an example of a lack of dead end states when it is one of the most commonly accepted examples of an improvement that has to come to the end in the very near future. ever heard of Moore's law?

You're assuming that humanity is not limited by the physical constraints of the universe, and that is wrong. It is true that we will find new ways to improve, but at some point we will become unable to sustain ourselves with the resources we have.

It does breed stagnation. To an extent. However living in such a manner does give one time to focus on the important things.

I'll admit my knowledge of far-eastern history is not what it should be. So your examples perhaps have weight than they should. But lack of economic growth does not have to lead to stagnation, so long as a desire for constancy, and regression is not the only driving force in your society.

"Also, why is a society of infinite growth even desirable?"

More people to have lives and enjoy living. That's why.

What steady-state economics does have to teach us however is that we may want to keep pressing ahead with technology, but we individually only need so much. There is no use to continue to raise the standard of living beyond a certain point. Once a baseline of material needs are met for a person, happiness comes from places other than goods.

"More people to have lives and enjoy living. That's why."

In most first world countries where the standard of living has risen the birth:death ration has fallen off such that the population is actually shrinking. (Save for immigration)

If that trend is generalizable, the population isn't going to increase infinitely. Making infinite growth sort of unnecessary.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your sentence. No offence but your wording isn't the clearest.

I agree with you on your second post. And I think to attain continual fast economic growth requires forgetting that, and buying useless junk. Which is actually one of the main reasons I object to models that demand growth. (But I digress)

"If that trend is generalizable, the population isn't going to increase infinitely. Making infinite growth sort of unnecessary. "

Extrapolate over the long haul. I'm not just talking about the next few hundred years bro.

Maybe world population stabilizes at 10 billion around 2050, maybe not. Let's say it does.

How long till another revolution in technology like the Green Revolution or Industrial Revolution to drive down death rates yet more?

Or failing that, how long until we colonize the ocean floors, or orbit, or other planets? Just as there are now many million more people of English descent in the world than there were in England in 1400, we can reasonably expect, failing a collapse, that human population will continue to grow in the long term.

And this is to be encouraged and celebrated. One of the reasons I think that technological growth is moving so quickly is that there are simply way more brains thinking about that stuff in this world than there have been in past worlds, combined with education of course to unlock them.

"How long till another revolution in technology like the Green Revolution or Industrial Revolution to drive down death rates yet more?"

Death rates in first world countries aren't the reason for the negative growth, its low birth rates. And human life cannot be extended much further than it already is, so decreasing death rates by keeping the elderly alive longer won't make a significant difference. The body physically starts to break down/attack itself after a certain point.

Even with colonization of new areas. (increased living space) The growth of the human population is dependent on birth rates. If people keep having few children so they can focus on other matters, the human population won't grow indefinitely.

Newsflash my friend - if death rates drop below birth rates, however low they are, population grows.

"And human life cannot be extended much further than it already is." Not right now it can't. That's why it would be a revolution.

And I don't see a rebuttal on colonizing new areas. Presuming they can be self-sufficient or at least partly so, this would lead to growth, just as it did when the small band of people who entered the Americas ended up birthing complex civilizations.

You seem not to have grasped this so I'll repeat it again - I'm not talking about just the next few hundred years, I'm talking about the *very long term* future.

"Newsflash my friend - if death rates drop below birth rates, however low they are, population grows."

I get that. Thanks. It's a fairly simple concept. My point is, there isn't much that can be done to lower death rates.

"You're assuming that humanity is not limited by the physical constraints of the universe, and that is wrong." -ghug

Cell's die. Clones have shorter lifespans. It would be a revolution indeed. But as someone very interested in that particular field, it is a highly improbable occurrence.
Rather than assume we can extend the human lifespan, and thus reduce death rates, why not base your argument on more plausible grounds. Law of parsimony and all.

Like this "And I don't see a rebuttal on colonizing new areas. Presuming they can be self-sufficient or at least partly so, this would lead to growth, just as it did when the small band of people who entered the Americas ended up birthing complex civilizations."

That's a good point, and one I won't argue with. I do think that in the colonies you would have a increase in birth rates, until the population levelled out. (Unless machines could do more work than an entire family, in which case why have boat loads of children like the colonists of the past did, when you could give your entire estate to just one or two children?)

"You seem not to have grasped this so I'll repeat it again - I'm not talking about just the next few hundred years, I'm talking about the *very long term* future."
I got that, no need to be condescending, I choose to limit my examples to the realistic possibilities, because anything else is just dreaming.

Sorry, lots of posts between your response to me and now but, feces, do you know how long it takes to build a power plant? And the transmission infrastructure for it?

Let alone the time it takes to research the requires technology?

These policies need to be proactive. Not reactive.

"More efficient or not we are still dumping it. The only model I can think of where truly infinite growth is possible is a system in which all resources are re-useable, without loss of material.

But yes, we are not near scarcity, we are however nearing scarcity, the world is far less lush and resources are less abundant than they once were. Are there plenty left? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't consider the decline of our accessible stock. No."
I would disagree, what we presently define as a resource is becoming scarce. In 1881 Oil was a rather irrelevant liquid, since the 1930s its been the most important strategic resource we have. However in terms of the total amount of resources on the planet, we have literally barely scratched the surface, the deepest mine is only 12 km deep, North America and Europe have more forest area then they have had in 400 years, so its not like we're running out of wood, we have more farm animals then at any time in history and thanks to breeding we'll have more in the future. Factory farming has reduced the amount of land farming takes up and cities are far denser population hubs then rural areas, so despite rising populations, we can sustain a far greater population. lets really put this in perspective, if everyone owned a plot of land the size of a typical New York apartment room, all 7 billion of us, would only need an area slightly bigger then Delaware, the second smallest state in the union.

We are not running out of resources but with technological developments become better at using them. But your right, it isn't infinitely sustainable, however a stars life cycle shows that in something like 6 billion years Sol will go nova and destroy everything in the solar system, so no path we take is sustainable in the really long run. Lets make the best we can do now.

The only resource that we have unnecessarily depleted in the last 20 years has been fish, but thats due to the tragedy of the commons, and thucy probably remembers that conversation from last year.

"But yes, we are not near scarcity, we are however nearing scarcity, the world is far less lush and resources are less abundant than they once were. Are there plenty left? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't consider the decline of our accessible stock. No."
We consume now knowing the more we consume, the better we will be at adapting to changes we cause from depleting our resources.

"Also, why is a society of infinite growth even desirable?"
Have you know desire to reach into the future? We have to take historical perspective on this. Many economists were against the industrial revolution for the same reason you seem to be against growth today. Now that we have hindsight of their reasons, would you have supported the industrial revolution, or would you have been content to forever live in an 18th century world? We don't know what the future holds, but just because we aren't aware of what it brings, doesn't mean we should fear it but embrace it and look forward to it.

That being said our current way of life is unsustainable so we either need growth or we need regression, it can't be somewhere in between. So pick your pick.

"It does breed stagnation. To an extent. However living in such a manner does give one time to focus on the important things. "
I am going to support individual rights, if you think the desire to be better, to know more, to test the limits of the human body and mind is rather demeaning or unimportant, the feel free to pursue your own road to happiness, but don't try to bring everyone who disagrees with you along with you.

"I'll admit my knowledge of far-eastern history is not what it should be. So your examples perhaps have weight than they should. But lack of economic growth does not have to lead to stagnation, so long as a desire for constancy, and regression is not the only driving force in your society."
Maybe you should look at a dictionary:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define+stagnation&oq=define+stagnation&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&q=stagnation&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=z3KgUJXXAsrfyAGJ6oCQBw&ved=0CB8QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=1&bpcl=38093640&biw=1920&bih=955
Stagnation is defined as lack of economic growth

"More people to have lives and enjoy living. That's why."
For the third time in memory me and Thucy actually agree on something. The desire to become better and to seek the future should be a cherished belief.

"What steady-state economics does have to teach us however is that we may want to keep pressing ahead with technology, but we individually only need so much. There is no use to continue to raise the standard of living beyond a certain point. Once a baseline of material needs are met for a person, happiness comes from places other than goods."
but thucy, that philosophy breeds stagnation, all of history has taught us that technological advancement only typically comes when needed. If everyone can afford the standard of living, and there is no yearn to become richer or better then anyone else, then there is no motivation to advance technologically.

"In most first world countries where the standard of living has risen the birth:death ration has fallen off such that the population is actually shrinking. (Save for immigration)

If that trend is generalizable, the population isn't going to increase infinitely. Making infinite growth sort of unnecessary."
And that is one solution to the economic problem of scarcity.

'I agree with you on your second post. And I think to attain continual fast economic growth requires forgetting that, and buying useless junk. Which is actually one of the main reasons I object to models that demand growth. (But I digress)"
This is the beauty of the free market, if you don't want to buy 'useless junk' then just don't buy it. But why should you force your own beliefs down everyone elses throats.

"How long till another revolution in technology like the Green Revolution or Industrial Revolution to drive down death rates yet more?

Or failing that, how long until we colonize the ocean floors, or orbit, or other planets? Just as there are now many million more people of English descent in the world than there were in England in 1400, we can reasonably expect, failing a collapse, that human population will continue to grow in the long term.

And this is to be encouraged and celebrated. One of the reasons I think that technological growth is moving so quickly is that there are simply way more brains thinking about that stuff in this world than there have been in past worlds, combined with education of course to unlock them."
Globalization is key influence in scientific development, for the first time in human history we have almost the entire world working together to make the earth a better place.

'Death rates in first world countries aren't the reason for the negative growth, its low birth rates. And human life cannot be extended much further than it already is, so decreasing death rates by keeping the elderly alive longer won't make a significant difference. The body physically starts to break down/attack itself after a certain point.

Even with colonization of new areas. (increased living space) The growth of the human population is dependent on birth rates. If people keep having few children so they can focus on other matters, the human population won't grow indefinitely."
OBJECTION: Stem Cell research, a cure for cancer.
using modern biology we have been able to make rats live 5 times more then their life expectancy under regular circumstances, we have been able to make insects live 12 times their regular life expectancy. What is the say we don't find a way for us to live to 200 or 300. Once we have invented stem cell research and cancer is is plausible that humans could live forever. By cloning our body parts to make them younger aging would end, however the biggest problem with this in experimentation is when we clone animals, they typically die at a younger age then expected from cancer. If we get cancer out of the way this immortality is plausible.

"Newsflash my friend - if death rates drop below birth rates, however low they are, population grows.

"And human life cannot be extended much further than it already is." Not right now it can't. That's why it would be a revolution."
Thucy has the just of it.

"And I don't see a rebuttal on colonizing new areas. Presuming they can be self-sufficient or at least partly so, this would lead to growth, just as it did when the small band of people who entered the Americas ended up birthing complex civilizations.

You seem not to have grasped this so I'll repeat it again - I'm not talking about just the next few hundred years, I'm talking about the *very long term* future."
I'm talking about both.

Granted for the next 50 or so years it will be 3rd world economies that will be growing our population, but as life expectancy continues to rise, so will human population.

"Rather than assume we can extend the human lifespan, and thus reduce death rates, why not base your argument on more plausible grounds. Law of parsimony and all."
Lets. Your running on the assumptions that everyone who has predicted the fall of capitalism has made, all of them were wrong, but your convinced its different this time simply because we don't know what the next level of human genius is.

I'm assuming that, just as every single circumstance in the past, humans will find away to overcome small obstacles.

Its essentially a sports team that has gone 180 wins and 0 losses in the last 180 games. For its 181st game, your betting on a loss, on the basis this this streak has to end eventually, and I am betting on a win, on the basis that they are good enough to win.

"I got that, no need to be condescending, I choose to limit my examples to the realistic possibilities, because anything else is just dreaming."
when we're predicting the future your limiting your examples to assume that no technology is ever improved on, when in reality technological growth is expanding every year.

"do you know how long it takes to build a power plant? And the transmission infrastructure for it?

Let alone the time it takes to research the requires technology?

These policies need to be proactive. Not reactive."
you missed the point, in a competitive market people are proactive, if not their investments go sour and they lose money.

In a stock market, you don't buy the stock that rose the most last year, you buy the stock that you think is going to rise the most this year.

I will say this again, Exxon Mobile is one of the leading advances of wind a solar energy, yet at the same time they are they have been the most profitable company in the world every year since 2005 (the year they overtook Wallmart) because of their investments in oil. They know they aren't in a renewable resource, thats why they are investing in solar and wind energy. They also know that solar power isn't a resource that is developed enough to be as cheap or as efficient as oil, so they will continue to use oil until they feel that wind or solar is better. Shell and BP will do the same, and that is the beauty of the free market. The ones who are wrong are going to lose money and the ones that are right are going to be rich.

If every Indian and Chinese person consumes the amount of the energy individual Americans do our planet is absolutely screwed. Indefinite growth is a recipe for disaster. The anarchy of production under market economies is a complete inefficient waste of land, labor, and capital that could be used to put us on a sustainable footing. We have legions of unemployed and yet not enough labor power to produce the kind of mass transit we need to get cars off the road. We have city planning that is an absolute fiasco in terms of efficiency. We have cars which should have been electric decades ago. We have buildings which should have been retrofitted decades ago. Market economies move at a snail's pace when it comes to energy and resource sustainability, and we're all paying for it.

That's one hell of a long post. I'll try and respond to most of the points directed at me. But If I miss a few, its not because I'm purposely glossing over them, it's because you've pulled an obi. :-P

"However in terms of the total amount of resources on the planet, we have literally barely scratched the surface, the deepest mine is only 12 km deep"
You do realize that at depths greater than 12.2km the rock has a plastic like consistency, and by 15km the temperature is 300C. Right? I'm not denying that harvesting any resources down there (if there are any, besides hydrogen and water) is possible. However a focus on the re-use of resources we already have, and a using these resources in a sustainable fashion, rather than just throwing them away would be a much smarter plan. Though, I will admit, one not in line with plans for economic growth, which demands that more products be sold, which in turn demands products don't last as long.

I'll be honest, my American geography is not up to snuff either, partly because I hate the country, and partly due to lack of caring. So I don't actually know the area of delaware. But the land needs of a population aren't defined solely by the amount of space they live in, one also has to take into account the resources they require to sustain their life style. Their global footprint, to steal a measure used in the 90's and the millennial period.

"We are not running out of resources but with technological developments become better at using them. But your right, it isn't infinitely sustainable,"
That's what I've been saying. Yes. Which means the it isn't myth.

"We consume now knowing the more we consume, the better we will be at adapting to changes we cause from depleting our resources."
Like many of your arguments, this assumes the only way for technology to progress is by economic necessity. In a post scarcity society I would argue that is certainly not the case. The concept of a past scarcity society such as the once Thucy talks about, is that it frees people to work on what interests them. Some will do nothing. Others like myself will continue to learn for its own sake, or for the sake of discovery. No economic incentive required.

"Many economists were against the industrial revolution for the same reason you seem to be against growth today. Now that we have hindsight of their reasons, would you have supported the industrial revolution, or would you have been content to forever live in an 18th century world? We don't know what the future holds, but just because we aren't aware of what it brings, doesn't mean we should fear it but embrace it and look forward to it."

This is the same argument I addressed just before this. I'm not arguing against scientific advancement.

"That being said our current way of life is unsustainable so we either need growth or we need regression, it can't be somewhere in between. So pick your pick."

Yep our current way of life is unsustainable. Growth isn't going to help that. Though I'm curious why you think it would? A little regression isn't necessarily a bad thing. Though I would concur that we should continue to advance scientific progress.

"This is the beauty of the free market, if you don't want to buy 'useless junk' then just don't buy it. But why should you force your own beliefs down everyone elses throats. "
Why should the natural resources of the planet be squandered creating electronics and toys that are thrown out months later, when the same resources could be used to make a toy or electronic device which is reparable/reusable.

"I am going to support individual rights, if you think the desire to be better, to know more, to test the limits of the human body and mind is rather demeaning or unimportant, the feel free to pursue your own road to happiness, but don't try to bring everyone who disagrees with you along with you. "
You're misinterpreting me again. See my point on post scarcity societies.... again.

"Maybe you should look at a dictionary:"
Smartass. Maybe you shouldn't cherry pick definitions. Stagnation: a failure to develop, progress, or advance. It's not always about the economy. In this case. I was. Once again. Referring to the possibility of scientific progress without economic growth.

"OBJECTION: Stem Cell research, a cure for cancer.
using modern biology we have been able to make rats live 5 times more then their life expectancy under regular circumstances, we have been able to make insects live 12 times their regular life expectancy. What is the say we don't find a way for us to live to 200 or 300. Once we have invented stem cell research and cancer is is plausible that humans could live forever. By cloning our body parts to make them younger aging would end, however the biggest problem with this in experimentation is when we clone animals, they typically die at a younger age then expected from cancer. If we get cancer out of the way this immortality is plausible."
I hate to burst your bubble here. (But this is my field of research after all) We've actually 'cured' cancer in mice and other animals many times, and several drugs have made it to the human test phase, without any progress. The conception that we are anywhere close to curing cancer is media buzz, and nothing more. And additionally the effects of cancer on clones is actually (partially) due to telomere cap shortening with age. Which, intriguingly enough shortens in stem cells as they age too. Here's an interesting piece from my field on the topic http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/46/14394.long If you're interested. It's a report on mice with shortened telomeres and the effects on neural regeneration. Interestingly enough the enzyme telomerase which lengthens telomerase caps promotes a longer life span research has shown that telomerase cannot keep up with normal stem cell repair, and eventually the stem cells cannot divide anymore.

Anyway the deal is that stem cells age too, so using them, even en-masse cannot do much to preserve the human body. Particularly not the brain.

I'm not saying an extension of the human lifespan is impossible. But its a hell of a lot more complicated then the objection you've raised.

Also re-rats and insects. You've simply declared it to be a result of modern biology. And I don't know what you're referencing off the top of my head. So until I know what technique you're talking about I cannot rebut it.

Life expectancy will rise for the third world yes. But the overall life expectancy of countries has been rising in a logarithmic fashion. Meaning we aren't liable to improve much more. Check out this chart. "http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm" (A crappy site, I know, but a lot of the numbers are a wash, some countries life expectancy increased, some it decreased, for a fair number it remained the same.)

"Lets. Your running on the assumptions that everyone who has predicted the fall of capitalism has made, all of them were wrong, but your convinced its different this time simply because we don't know what the next level of human genius is.

I'm assuming that, just as every single circumstance in the past, humans will find away to overcome small obstacles."
No. I'm actually convinced capitalism will fall due to the rampant in equality of it. However I never talked about the fall of capitalism. I'm talking about the inevitability of resources running out, if we don't use them wisely. (IE we aim for infinite growth.) A low growth capitalist economy is possible, and possibly even desirable.

"Its essentially a sports team that has gone 180 wins and 0 losses in the last 180 games. For its 181st game, your betting on a loss, on the basis this this streak has to end eventually, and I am betting on a win, on the basis that they are good enough to win. "
Have you read much about logic? It's impossible to deny the possibility of running out of resources. Because it could alway happen. It CANNOT be proven. To do so is impossible.

To use a more appropriate metaphor. Its like saying hey this team has won 180 games, but eventually its players will retire. I'm betting on the eventual lack of resources. Not some immediate one game scenario.

Also. I agree with Putin.

Capitalism is terrible at resource efficiency until it is forced upon them. Better to waste 5time the metal to produce 10 crap products then produce one good one. It's easier to rake in profit.

And when the metal goes up. Just switch to a different material and repeat.

"If every Indian and Chinese person consumes the amount of the energy individual Americans do our planet is absolutely screwed. Indefinite growth is a recipe for disaster. The anarchy of production under market economies is a complete inefficient waste of land, labor, and capital that could be used to put us on a sustainable footing. We have legions of unemployed and yet not enough labor power to produce the kind of mass transit we need to get cars off the road. We have city planning that is an absolute fiasco in terms of efficiency. We have cars which should have been electric decades ago. We have buildings which should have been retrofitted decades ago. Market economies move at a snail's pace when it comes to energy and resource sustainability, and we're all paying for it. "
Yeah, cause the soviet union, that was worse then America per capita in the 80s, is the solution...
Also where were the electric cars in the USSR? last I checked the USSR produced the exact same kind of care from 1947 to 1987, no technological advancement what so ever.

The russians were good at producing bombs and not much else.

"And when the metal goes up. Just switch to a different material and repeat."
but thats the thing Damain, the price of all metals is cheaper today then it was 50 years ago (adjusted for inflation) because for every ore we mine, we find more ore.

And once again, 10 crap products using what analogy? The bueaty of the free market is if you think its crap you don't have to buy it. Your free to buy whatever you want or don't want to buy.

"That's one hell of a long post. I'll try and respond to most of the points directed at me. But If I miss a few, its not because I'm purposely glossing over them, it's because you've pulled an obi. :-P "
The one thing me and obi have in common is we like to respond to every single post between our posts.

"You do realize that at depths greater than 12.2km the rock has a plastic like consistency, and by 15km the temperature is 300C. Right? I'm not denying that harvesting any resources down there (if there are any, besides hydrogen and water) is possible. However a focus on the re-use of resources we already have, and a using these resources in a sustainable fashion, rather than just throwing them away would be a much smarter plan. Though, I will admit, one not in line with plans for economic growth, which demands that more products be sold, which in turn demands products don't last as long. "
that is a very old misconception, the average product on the market today lasts longer then it did years ago.

"I'll be honest, my American geography is not up to snuff either, partly because I hate the country, and partly due to lack of caring. So I don't actually know the area of delaware. But the land needs of a population aren't defined solely by the amount of space they live in, one also has to take into account the resources they require to sustain their life style. Their global footprint, to steal a measure used in the 90's and the millennial period."
You miss the point. The point is, land isn't a scarce resource. We could easily sustain 50 billion people on this planet if we have the agricultural production.

"Like many of your arguments, this assumes the only way for technology to progress is by economic necessity. In a post scarcity society I would argue that is certainly not the case. The concept of a past scarcity society such as the once Thucy talks about, is that it frees people to work on what interests them. Some will do nothing. Others like myself will continue to learn for its own sake, or for the sake of discovery. No economic incentive required. "
But that is the thing, every example in history has shown that economic incentive sparks technological growth. There is a reason that nothing is advancing faster then communication technology at the moment, meanwhile, technological sectors like NASA have lacked much progress in the last 20 years. There is no longer the economic incentive.

In a post scarcity world there will be technological advancement, but it wont be nearly as fast as the growth that leads to post scarcity economics.

""We are not running out of resources but with technological developments become better at using them. But your right, it isn't infinitely sustainable,"
That's what I've been saying. Yes. Which means the it isn't myth. "
You cut out the last half of the sentence, I said we die when our sun blows up in 6 billion years, that's when it ends, and nothing on earth can last more then 6 billion years capitalism included.

"This is the same argument I addressed just before this. I'm not arguing against scientific advancement. "
Advancement is the opposite of stagnation, which is what you advocated prior to this. Any good technology will lead to some economic growth, if it doesn't that it isn't useful.
(I command you to think of one good that doesn't produce any economic growth but has a use.)

"Why should the natural resources of the planet be squandered creating electronics and toys that are thrown out months later, when the same resources could be used to make a toy or electronic device which is reparable/reusable. "
This is why your against technological growth. We don't throw out electronic devices because they are broken. We throw out our iPhone 4s when the iPhone 5 comes out. Thats technological growth, and if you don't like it, then your admitting you against some technologies.

"The conception that we are anywhere close to curing cancer is media buzz, and nothing more."
I never said we were, I said that eventually our life span will start increasing dramatically once we cure cancer, I never said that would be soon.

But I am not going to argue on your area of research (biology or whatever) but you ARE arguing against my area of expertise (I am an econ major). One thing I have never understood about scientists is you admit that your experts in your field and that experts are more knowledgeable in their area of expertise, but then presume to know more then economists about economics.

I'm not saying fuck off you know nothing. But what I am saying is your making economic assumptions that have been universely accepted by both left wing and right wing economists for the last 150 years (and in Putins case the last 20 years).

Check out this chart. "http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm"
"Canada 79.4 79.2"
Canada's current life expectancy is 80.0. So its increased in the last 10 years after decreasing over 2 years. But again, me and thucy have agreed that we need major technological advancements that probably wont be seen for another 100 years to get our life expectancy to rise dramatically.

"No. I'm actually convinced capitalism will fall due to the rampant inequality of it."
Another misconception. Most economists agree that inequality has fallen over the last 20 years, but the media is still reporting rising inequality using manipulative data.

"A low growth capitalist economy is possible, and possibly even desirable. "
Then you don't know what capitalism means. All capitalism means is that we have the freedom to produce whatever we want to produce and that our worth is judged by how much others value what we produce. If your restricting our ability to produce what we want (ie limit growth) then its no longer capitalist but Keynesian.

Once again your outside your area of expertise and making assumptions about economics that haven't been made by economists in 150 years.

"Have you read much about logic? It's impossible to deny the possibility of running out of resources. Because it could alway happen. It CANNOT be proven. To do so is impossible. "
Have you taken any economic courses? No!

Let me walk you through the first weeks of Econ 101.

Economics is the study of scarcity. Given that human wants are infinite and resources are finite we need to determine a way to locate resources efficiently.

Next thing your taught is opportunity cost, which is whenever your doing something, you could be doing something else. The opportunity cost of an action is the value of the best alternative. eg. right now I am participating in a debate online, I could probably be studying for my Latin midterm on Tuesday. So the opportunity cost of debating politics with you is having less time to study for my midterm.

Next is the production possibilities curve, which I that if we want to produce more of one good, we have to produce less of another. Everything within the curve represents possible resource allocations, everything outside the curve is impossible given current technologies. Every economist agrees that it is ideal to produce on the curve (where you can't produce any more given current technological constaints) rather then inside the curve (where your just wasting resources by not producing to your fullest extent.

Next is the basic laws of supply and demand (this is where we differ the most, your running under the assumption of the Malthusian Catastrophe which every economist since Malthus has agreed is bullshit). The price of a good and quantity produced is dictated based on the supply and demand of the good. If supply goes down, price goes up and quantity demanded goes down. If demand goes up, quantity supplied goes up and price goes up. Inverse for a decrease in supply and demand.

lets assume supply goes down over time, that will result in a slow increase in price which will result in a slow increase in quantity demanded. As the price of the good goes up, the opportunity cost to look at alternatives increases. Therefore alternative goods (eg. apples instead of oranges) will be produced and consumed. Eventually quantity demanded and quantity supplied will be in equilibrium, and thats when we are producing to our most efficient level. In the cases of apples and oranges, they are renewable resources so we don't have to worry about running out. In the case of oil, the alternatives are renewable, so when the supply drops increasing the price, we will switch to renewable sources. The benefit being that for the years we are using Oil we save all that money from not having to use the more expensive wind and solar energy.

In the case of say a consumer good like shoes. Eventually the resources needed to make a shoe will become scarce, price goes up, and so we will look for alternatives, which may be recycling shoes.

In the case of electronics every year the processing power of computers doubles and the size shrinks. The ultrabooks that have just appeared on the market are far superior to computers of 10 years ago and yet cost have the amount to make in terms of resources.

I am not ignoring scarcity. Economics is the study of scarcity. My field of research is entirely involved around scarcity. The difference is I think the scarcity problem can be solved (and my entire field of research is based upon how to solve it) and you don't.

Now bear in mind I've only just touched upon the first 2 weeks of Econ 101 for this post. Don't expect my knowledge to end there, but I don't feel the need to dive any further into economics because it takes just 2 weeks of studying economics to know that you are wrong.

"To use a more appropriate metaphor. Its like saying hey this team has won 180 games, but eventually its players will retire. I'm betting on the eventual lack of resources. Not some immediate one game scenario."
To continue the analogy, the team that won 180 games in a row, its best player retires then. But because the team made so much money off those 180 wins, it buys the best player from the best opponent to replace him and continues winning.

sorry for the mega post again, but lots has been talked about

"but thats the thing Damain, the price of all metals is cheaper today then it was 50 years ago (adjusted for inflation) because for every ore we mine, we find more ore."
I picked the metal thing as an analogy. The point was there is little incentive in capitalism to use resources wisely, if you can simply switch to another new material.

"The bueaty of the free market is if you think its crap you don't have to buy it. Your free to buy whatever you want or don't want to buy."
Sadly the sort of products and the supporting infrastructure for the kind of products I want to buy no longer exists.

"that is a very old misconception, the average product on the market today lasts longer then it did years ago."
It's your field, I suppose, I can only speak from experience, but my old microwave lasted 20 years, the new one blew up after 5, the replacement blew up after 5, and with the old microwave you could order replacement parts without paying exorbitant costs for them. How I wasn't referring to the shelf life of an idea, before they put out the next model, I was referring to the time it lasts before it breaks down. Which maybe I'm wrong about the averages/maybe I've had bad luck, but my personal experience is that old stuff was build to last.

"You miss the point. The point is, land isn't a scarce resource. We could easily sustain 50 billion people on this planet if we have the agricultural production."
And you missed my point, which was that land for agriculture needs to be included in that total, as well as land for forestry and so forth.

"In a post scarcity world there will be technological advancement, but it wont be nearly as fast as the growth that leads to post scarcity economics."
Maybe it will be slower, but the world will be a more equitable place, in which everyone has all there basic needs met. I think its a worthy trade off.

"Advancement is the opposite of stagnation, which is what you advocated prior to this. Any good technology will lead to some economic growth, if it doesn't that it isn't useful.
(I command you to think of one good that doesn't produce any economic growth but has a use.)"
I'm in favour of economic slowing/no growth economies. Which you deemed stagnant, and continued advancement in research and attainment of knowledge.
(I'm not changing my position, I'm attempting to clarify what I've been trying to say all along)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of economic growth. But right now, as I understand it, if everyone in the world stopped buying products, and switched to subsistence agriculture with a side of bartering, there would be no economic growth. Yes? Growth isn't even about the net amount spent. its about how much more is spent than the last report? No? In which case any technology which lasts for a long period of time will trigger short term economic growth, followed by negative growth, as spending on the need decreases, followed by a period of no growth.

"This is why your against technological growth. We don't throw out electronic devices because they are broken. We throw out our iPhone 4s when the iPhone 5 comes out. Thats technological growth, and if you don't like it, then your admitting you against some technologies."
Call it technological growth if you must. That's not how I view it. I view it as a completely unnecessary overhaul of a workable product. When they could instead release a product every three years with much more significant upgrades, rather than the rapid new product cycle, with smaller upgrades. I'm in favour of upgrades that mean something, not upgrading for upgrading's sake.

"I never said we were, I said that eventually our life span will start increasing dramatically once we cure cancer, I never said that would be soon.

But I am not going to argue on your area of research (biology or whatever) but you ARE arguing against my area of expertise (I am an econ major). One thing I have never understood about scientists is you admit that your experts in your field and that experts are more knowledgeable in their area of expertise, but then presume to know more then economists about economics."
That's the problem with working in the social sciences Fasces. Everyday everyone lives in an economic system. So they have a direct stake, and an impression of what they feel is wrong with the system.

Which means study it all you want, everyone and anyone will challenge your views based on their experiences, because that's what matters to them.

"Have you taken any economic courses? No!"
I'm going to read and reply to your entire spiel on the two weeks of economics. However you've missed the point. It is impossible to prove a negative. Impossible. Regardless of what you say. It cannot, ever, be proven. You can only ever prove a positive.

Eg. You can prove without a doubt that capitalism has overcome doubts about the scarcity of resources before.
For the same reason that an Atheist cannot disprove God, because there can be no proof of a negative. It doesn't matter what field you're in. It's Intro to Formal Reasoning and Logic 101. (That isn't meant to be offensive, it's a field of study. (Though you probably know that already) )

Good luck on your midterm.

"Next is the basic laws of supply and demand (this is where we differ the most, your running under the assumption of the Malthusian Catastrophe which every economist since Malthus has agreed is bullshit). The price of a good and quantity produced is dictated based on the supply and demand of the good. If supply goes down, price goes up and quantity demanded goes down. If demand goes up, quantity supplied goes up and price goes up. Inverse for a decrease in supply and demand."
Not sure where you're getting the impression I disagree with supply and demand. OR that I'm supporting the Malthusian Catastrophe Hypothesis. All I've been arguing is that resources are finite and given finite resources it would be best to use our resources wisely, rather than squander them in a quest for purposeless growth.

"Next is the production possibilities curve, which I that if we want to produce more of one good, we have to produce less of another. Everything within the curve represents possible resource allocations, everything outside the curve is impossible given current technologies. Every economist agrees that it is ideal to produce on the curve (where you can't produce any more given current technological constaints) rather then inside the curve (where your just wasting resources by not producing to your fullest extent."
I would say it is here, and not the point on the laws of supply and demand where we differ the most. As I would argue, that yes not producing to your fullest extent will lead to slow, or no growth, it conserves the resources you don't use to the creation of later products. And even if you could make more money to invest in more resources, I think that the cost of harvesting those resources, (represented by non-monatary value) is higher than the margin one might make by producing a cavalcade of unending products, some of which end up in the dump.

"lets assume supply goes down over time, that will result in a slow increase in price which will result in a slow increase in quantity demanded"
If you don't mind, explain this to me. Supply Decreases, Prices go Up. Wouldn't demand go down due to higher prices? Or in the case of a necessity, stay the same?

"The benefit being that for the years we are using Oil we save all that money from not having to use the more expensive wind and solar energy.

In the case of say a consumer good like shoes. Eventually the resources needed to make a shoe will become scarce, price goes up, and so we will look for alternatives, which may be recycling shoes. "
I mentioned it earlier, but this is the other major bone of contention. I feel that the money saved from using oil isn't necessarily worth it due to the environmental impact. It's that way with most non-renewable and even some renewable resources. The impact on other animals and the environment is a cost which I find painfully high.

"In the case of electronics every year the processing power of computers doubles and the size shrinks. The ultrabooks that have just appeared on the market are far superior to computers of 10 years ago and yet cost have the amount to make in terms of resources."
An ode to progress for sure.

"it takes just 2 weeks of studying economics to know that you are wrong."
I've long thought the field of economics fails to account for things which I consider by costs.

"To continue the analogy, the team that won 180 games in a row, its best player retires then. But because the team made so much money off those 180 wins, it buys the best player from the best opponent to replace him and continues winning."
I'm going to cut this analogy short here. And just try and sum up what I'm trying to say.

We agree that resources are finite. (You said it yourself ) "Given that human wants are infinite and resources are finite we need to determine a way to locate resources efficiently." I just believe that because they are finite, that the most important thing is to use them wisely in the first place. Reuse or Recycle were you can from the start, don't produce trash or dead end (non recyclable) products, unless they are required. I believe we shouldn't be slaves to economic growth, and that the focus on economic growth is unhealthy. And yes. I believe that scarcity in the end, is something which can be postponed but never solved. Even with the best recycling.

Side note: I have other reasons in addition to the enironmental ones for opposing infinite growth policies. I'm avoiding those topics to stick to the issue at hand
the environmental infeasibility and undesirability of unlimited growth

You make an Obi-length post and all I get is some throwaway redbaiting? C'mon.

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries.png?w=448&h=269

Also, you're wrong about consumption per capita. But stop dodging the issue about your own system's failings. The USSR was at a much lower technological level than the USA and was forced to develop at a hurry, emphasizing heavy industry & military production to defend itself. Socialist countries which haven't had to do that - like Cuba - have very good environmental records, thank you very much.

Indeed I was agreeing with Fasces.

"As I would argue, that yes not producing to your fullest extent will lead to slow, or no growth, it conserves the resources you don't use to the creation of later products."

That's not how PPF works. Point inside the set bounded by PPF depict situations when you produce less than you could from the same amount of inputs. Points inside the set are productively inefficient; you do not spend less to make them, you spend the same but make less of them. If you care for conserving resources for future, you have to move along PPF, where the most efficient production occurs. Conserving resources is a question of allocative efficiency, i.e. moving along PPF according to consumers' marginal rate of substitution. To that end, you would expand the model to include future beyond the static one-term framework. But since modelling tastes of the whole population is daunting at best, I don't see why anyone would use this model to make real-world assessments. It's an theoretical underpinning for a lot of economics, not an actual policy tool.

Ah I see. I did have a muffling feeling I was missunderstanding what he meant with the pff. Thanks for that

"I picked the metal thing as an analogy. The point was there is little incentive in capitalism to use resources wisely, if you can simply switch to another new material. "
NO! The point of capitalism is profit maximizing entities will use metals to the most efficient use possible if not then they aren't maximizing profit meaning a competitor will take over.

"Sadly the sort of products and the supporting infrastructure for the kind of products I want to buy no longer exists. "
Thats funny, because we have more products and better infrastructure then ever in history. Out of interest what sort of products do you want to buy? If they were never available in the past then your argument is invalid, if they are available now but are just really expensive then your argument is invalid.

"It's your field, I suppose, I can only speak from experience, but my old microwave lasted 20 years, the new one blew up after 5, the replacement blew up after 5, and with the old microwave you could order replacement parts without paying exorbitant costs for them. How I wasn't referring to the shelf life of an idea, before they put out the next model, I was referring to the time it lasts before it breaks down. Which maybe I'm wrong about the averages/maybe I've had bad luck, but my personal experience is that old stuff was build to last."
Your microwave is just one example. But yeah, we generally remember the times when our technology has failed us, not when it hasn't.

"Call it technological growth if you must. That's not how I view it. I view it as a completely unnecessary overhaul of a workable product. When they could instead release a product every three years with much more significant upgrades, rather than the rapid new product cycle, with smaller upgrades. I'm in favour of upgrades that mean something, not upgrading for upgrading's sake. "
It is, the iPhone 5 is far superior to the iPhone 4s and that is why people throw out the 4s to buy the new one. Its the fastest advancing industry there is. If you want to release a new product every 3 years instead of every year. Then what is happening is your cutting technological growth in this field by almost 1/3. When you have competitors and the demand to create new products quickly, products get created quickly. Black Berry had a monopoly on smartphones for a while, they slowly released new products with barely any changes, when others stepped into the game, they increased their ability to advance (and still fell behind)

"And you missed my point, which was that land for agriculture needs to be included in that total, as well as land for forestry and so forth. "
I agree, and the free market factors that in, we can sustain around 9 billion people on the planet with current technology, by the time we get to 9 billion, more technology will come out that could let us sustain more.

I'm not saying we will ever get to 50, but the free market isn't misusing resources, its whats fuelling our population boom. Proof of that is growth rates in the warsaw pact were far inferior to that of Nato.

"Maybe it will be slower, but the world will be a more equitable place, in which everyone has all there basic needs met. I think its a worthy trade off"
It depends on what you define as a basic need, but under most definitions we don't have the technology at the moment for everyones basic needs to be met right now, but economists on both the right and the left agree that capitalism has done far more in helping the poor in 3rd world countries then any other model could.

"I'm in favour of economic slowing/no growth economies. Which you deemed stagnant, and continued advancement in research and attainment of knowledge.
(I'm not changing my position, I'm attempting to clarify what I've been trying to say all along)"
but again, say you discover a new way of producing agriculture so that we can produce 10 times as much food. Do we implement it and allow for economic growth when the population booms? Or do we restrict it because we don't want to population to increase? If you restrict it then nobody is going to say, ok he was able to make it 10 times better, but I think I can make it 15 times better. For starters unless we implement it we don't know if it really is 10 times better. And second, if we do implement it, we can find ways to adjust it to produce even greater outputs.

Lets say your a chemist with a great new theory about what mixing oxygen and hydrogen together can do but then a government agent says, your not allowed to mix to chemicals because it might produce economic growth. Sure, many chemists will agree with you, but until it is actually tested in a laboratory we wont really know the answer.

"Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of economic growth. But right now, as I understand it, if everyone in the world stopped buying products, and switched to subsistence agriculture with a side of bartering, there would be no economic growth. Yes? Growth isn't even about the net amount spent. its about how much more is spent than the last report? No? In which case any technology which lasts for a long period of time will trigger short term economic growth, followed by negative growth, as spending on the need decreases, followed by a period of no growth. "
Your first two parts are correct. However if a technology lasts for a long period of time. Then spending on that tech will stop, but spending on other areas will increase.

What your essentially assuming is that say every year I spend $100 on a product. However due to technological growth I now only have to spend $200 every 10 years. Because I am now spending $200 rather then $1000 every decade, the economy has in fact declined by $800.

However in actuality I have $800 to spend on other things, I may chose the get a new suit, pay off a loan, buy a new computer. Invest in a stock to make even more money.

The technology that lasts for a long period of time doesn't reduce economic growth, it allows us to spend in other areas.

"That's the problem with working in the social sciences Fasces. Everyday everyone lives in an economic system. So they have a direct stake, and an impression of what they feel is wrong with the system.

Which means study it all you want, everyone and anyone will challenge your views based on their experiences, because that's what matters to them."
I agree, but now let me use a new analogy. I am going to assume that as someone who knows a significant amount about biology, I am going to assume you believe in evolution (I'm not saying your atheist or not, but I presume you believe that the earth is more then 6000 years old and that we evolved over millions or billions of years).

Now I am going to come out as a young earth creationist. I am going to discredit your entire field and claim that god created the world, as it is today, in 6 days and say that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Many people hold this belief, most of them have never studied biology. Are you going to try to change their opinion or are you going to let them discredit your field, vote for a candidate who wants to teach creationism in schools etc.

The point is, economics is still a field of research, and granted most people assume they know a lot more about economics then they actually do. The fact is if most economists agree that growth is sustainable and desirable, from left wing economists like Paul Krugman to right wing economists like the Austrians, then it probably is somewhate sustainable.

"Eg. You can prove without a doubt that capitalism has overcome doubts about the scarcity of resources before.
For the same reason that an Atheist cannot disprove God, because there can be no proof of a negative. It doesn't matter what field you're in. It's Intro to Formal Reasoning and Logic 101. (That isn't meant to be offensive, it's a field of study. (Though you probably know that already) )"
Lots of great scientists like Richard Dawkings certainly try. I have never said there is no scarcity in capitalism. What I have said is that capitalism allocates the scarce resources based on the supply and demand of them. Capitalism causes economic growth, and because there are substitute goods when goods aren't renewable, growth is generally sustainable.

"Not sure where you're getting the impression I disagree with supply and demand. OR that I'm supporting the Malthusian Catastrophe Hypothesis. All I've been arguing is that resources are finite and given finite resources it would be best to use our resources wisely, rather than squander them in a quest for purposeless growth."
That Malthusian Catastrophe is the very thing your arguing. The Malthusian Catastrophe is that growth leads to shortages and so eventually growth will collapse on itself and we will be worse off then before the growth occurred.

And what I am arguing is that by using resources wisely, you are going to create growth.

"I would say it is here, and not the point on the laws of supply and demand where we differ the most. As I would argue, that yes not producing to your fullest extent will lead to slow, or no growth, it conserves the resources you don't use to the creation of later products. And even if you could make more money to invest in more resources, I think that the cost of harvesting those resources, (represented by non-monatary value) is higher than the margin one might make by producing a cavalcade of unending products, some of which end up in the dump. "
But your wasting resources. Say I own an apple tree, if I try to conserve some of the apples on tree by not harvesting them, it wont mean I harvest more next year. Ulytau did a far better job at explaining this then I did. And Ulytau, sorry for misreading your original post. lol

'If you don't mind, explain this to me. Supply Decreases, Prices go Up. Wouldn't demand go down due to higher prices? Or in the case of a necessity, stay the same?"
Typo, I meant to say quantity demanded goes down. Now I could be technical and say that price doesn't effect demand only quantity demanded, but that would probably make you confused, lol. So yes, a higher price would mean lower quantity demanded.

well spotted.

"I've long thought the field of economics fails to account for things which I consider by costs. "
Once again your making assumptions about economics based on not actually studying economics. What you consider to be costs are what we economists call externalities. For example many economists support carbon cap and trade as a way of internalizing the externality of carbon emissions. Others support taxing it and others support private property rights and lastly some don't think carbon emissions is not an externality and so doesn't need to be solved. You may have beef with that last group, as they don't believe in global warming, but most economists do and take that into account.

"I just believe that because they are finite, that the most important thing is to use them wisely in the first place."
I agree, but here is where we differ on that that means:
I think the best way to make use of scarce resources is to use supply and demand, goods are priced based on the supply and demand for the good, and people buy what they want and don't buy what they don't want.

If supply is limited (resources too scarce) then few will want the high prices of the resource and quantity demanded will remain low. In a free market as supply decreases quantity demanded will decrease as well (I apologize for confusing you by accidentally saying increase in the previous post)

"You make an Obi-length post and all I get is some throwaway redbaiting? C'mon."
Putin I have long since given up on you. Damain on the other hand...

"http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries.png?w=448&h=269"
I wasn't talking about consumption, I was talking about emissions which is what you were referring to.

"Socialist countries which haven't had to do that - like Cuba - have very good environmental records, thank you very much."
Then I can point to capitalist countries like Chile who emit only a little more then cuba on a per capita basis.

I thought that this might be relevant to you discussion: U.S. to become world's largest oil producer before 2020, IEA says
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-u.s.-oil-producer-saudi-arabia-iea-20121112,0,6181922.story

don't have time to read everything, but a few points.

'More efficient or not we are still dumping it. The only model I can think of where truly infinite growth is possible is a system in which all resources are re-useable, without loss of material.'

without loss of material requires an entropy input - otherwise it is physically possible.

However at best that is merely a constant rate of production - or provision of services.

I may have messed up my economics somewhere above - you need to increase the rate of export of entropy (to the sun) to increase the rate of growth, and it is a finite resource. (though there are billions of other suns - i'm assuming not infinite growth but maximal growth to the point where the sun runs out)

How and ever, i haven't read everything everyone has said.

There are efficiencies which can be gained which multiply the productivity of an activity - like car sharing (build one car, and allow multiple people to travel in it, thus multiplying the utility) or better still be broadcasting a film/tv to multiple people (for almost zero cost) you multiple the effective utility of the unit of film productivity - or perhaps by ending copyright laws - you turn currently copyrighted materials into raw materials for the use in new creative works...

Overall there are non-financial ways to create value, and thus growth which require only ideas to be synthesised rather than any physical object (though this also requires and entropy output.... and for it to be growth in the industry you need to have more created, thus more thinking going into the creativity year on year... ) still more resource sharing - and thus more exponential growth - can massively increase the physical limits.

As the population increases (and free time to consume information does the same) the possible number of minds to appreciate each piece of creative work likewise increases. Thus the future could easily hold information as the largest industry known to man, beyond weapons, food, or any physical services...

"NO! The point of capitalism is profit maximizing entities will use metals to the most efficient use possible if not then they aren't maximizing profit meaning a competitor will take over."
Not if it costs less to just switch to a new metal/metal substitute. You can make a ton of profit without recycling a resource. And since its cheaper not to pay to recycle the resource it does actually maximize profits.

"Thats funny, because we have more products and better infrastructure then ever in history. Out of interest what sort of products do you want to buy? If they were never available in the past then your argument is invalid, if they are available now but are just really expensive then your argument is invalid."
Appliances like those out of the past (20's 50's (I always confuse the two eras)) Which were easy to repair by yourself, and the associated infrastructure of affordable replacement parts, and lots of mechanics.

"Your microwave is just one example. But yeah, we generally remember the times when our technology has failed us, not when it hasn't."
It's a commonly noted trend, that appliances are being made with cheaper materials and aren't lasting as long. It's not just one lone example of my microwave http://blog.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/2012/04/appliances_just_arent_what_the.html

"Then what is happening is your cutting technological growth in this field by almost 1/3. When you have competitors and the demand to create new products quickly, products get created quickly. Black Berry had a monopoly on smartphones for a while, they slowly released new products with barely any changes, when others stepped into the game, they increased their ability to advance (and still fell behind)"
You are only cutting growth in the field if the amount of growth per iteration remains the same. I will admit that iPhones and are not the best example for this however, as, like you said the technology is progressing extremely fast. Almost fast enough to warrant models as frequently as they come out.

"I agree, and the free market factors that in, we can sustain around 9 billion people on the planet with current technology, by the time we get to 9 billion, more technology will come out that could let us sustain more."
Perhaps, or perhaps, as I've been saying our population with stabilize not due to scarcity, but rather due to abundance. (See the first world birth rates.)

"It depends on what you define as a basic need, but under most definitions we don't have the technology at the moment for everyones basic needs to be met right now, but economists on both the right and the left agree that capitalism has done far more in helping the poor in 3rd world countries then any other model could. "
This is a whole rabbit warren in it of itself. Needless to say I disagree whole heartedly about the benefits for the 3rd world. But that is unrelated to the issue at hand, and I'm not getting into it here.

"but again, say you discover a new way of producing agriculture so that we can produce 10 times as much food. Do we implement it and allow for economic growth when the population booms? Or do we restrict it because we don't want to population to increase? If you restrict it then nobody is going to say, ok he was able to make it 10 times better, but I think I can make it 15 times better. For starters unless we implement it we don't know if it really is 10 times better. And second, if we do implement it, we can find ways to adjust it to produce even greater outputs.

Lets say your a chemist with a great new theory about what mixing oxygen and hydrogen together can do but then a government agent says, your not allowed to mix to chemicals because it might produce economic growth. Sure, many chemists will agree with you, but until it is actually tested in a laboratory we wont really know the answer."
I think you're pushing my case to the extreme end of the spectrum. And I will agree I don't like it there either. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that humanity should be a slave to economic growth, either by requiring it to avoid brutal recessions, or by purposely stunting scientific growth to prevent growth. Both are unacceptable outcomes.

Frankly infinite economic growth (when you factor for inflation) is unsustainable anyway from my perspective. As when the population levels out, which I believe it will. (Not due to a carrying capacity, due to a decrease in reproductive desire). Constantly increasing spending each quarter means that eventually the people unless they start getting paid more, must spend themselves into debt to keep the economy growing.

"Your first two parts are correct. However if a technology lasts for a long period of time. Then spending on that tech will stop, but spending on other areas will increase.

What your essentially assuming is that say every year I spend $100 on a product. However due to technological growth I now only have to spend $200 every 10 years. Because I am now spending $200 rather then $1000 every decade, the economy has in fact declined by $800.

However in actuality I have $800 to spend on other things, I may chose the get a new suit, pay off a loan, buy a new computer. Invest in a stock to make even more money.
" Or to save money for retirement. Which unless it is invested in new companies isn't contributing to economic growth.

"Are you going to try to change their opinion or are you going to let them discredit your field, vote for a candidate who wants to teach creationism in schools etc.

The point is, economics is still a field of research, and granted most people assume they know a lot more about economics then they actually do. The fact is if most economists agree that growth is sustainable and desirable, from left wing economists like Paul Krugman to right wing economists like the Austrians, then it probably is somewhate sustainable. "

And you are more than welcome to try and change my opinion. Which is what I would do for the YEC. However, my point was that you cannot prove that resources will not run out.

"That Malthusian Catastrophe is the very thing your arguing. The Malthusian Catastrophe is that growth leads to shortages and so eventually growth will collapse on itself and we will be worse off then before the growth occurred.

And what I am arguing is that by using resources wisely, you are going to create growth."
The Malthusian Hypothesis was all about population growth causing these problems. Since I'm not concerned with the problems of a growing population, I'm not arguing for his hypothesis.

"But your wasting resources. Say I own an apple tree, if I try to conserve some of the apples on tree by not harvesting them, it wont mean I harvest more next year. Ulytau did a far better job at explaining this then I did. And Ulytau, sorry for misreading your original post. lol"
As I said to Ulytau. I misunderstood that point. I'm dropping this argument. As it wasn't relevant to the curve as it actually is.

"well spotted."
Thank you. I was wondering if what knowledge I thought I had of economics was completely wrong. Or if you had made a mistake. I'm glad to know it was just a typo.

"Once again your making assumptions about economics based on not actually studying economics. What you consider to be costs are what we economists call externalities. For example many economists support carbon cap and trade as a way of internalizing the externality of carbon emissions. Others support taxing it and others support private property rights and lastly some don't think carbon emissions is not an externality and so doesn't need to be solved. You may have beef with that last group, as they don't believe in global warming, but most economists do and take that into account.
"
I actually already knew about externalities (believe it or not). What I was saying is I don't believe the costs placed on those externalities represent their true value.

"I agree, but here is where we differ on that that means:
I think the best way to make use of scarce resources is to use supply and demand, goods are priced based on the supply and demand for the good, and people buy what they want and don't buy what they don't want.

If supply is limited (resources too scarce) then few will want the high prices of the resource and quantity demanded will remain low. In a free market as supply decreases quantity demanded will decrease as well (I apologize for confusing you by accidentally saying increase in the previous post)"
And my belief is that supply and demand works to make resources less accessible, due to human ingenuity, and our ability to consistently find cheaper alternatives, rather than recycle materials that have been used before.

(These response posts take way too long to write. I'm thinking I may just have to drop out of the argument, and hope some other anti-growth nut takes over for me. ;-) )

I'll try and get to your post Orathaic. I will. But no promises

"'More efficient or not we are still dumping it. The only model I can think of where truly infinite growth is possible is a system in which all resources are re-useable, without loss of material.'

without loss of material requires an entropy input - otherwise it is physically possible.

However at best that is merely a constant rate of production - or provision of services."
Actually that is a good point, based on Damians logic, even a perfect recycling system can't sustain growth because the recycling plan will have to get bigger and bigger.

So Damain here is a proposal. Growth isn't infinite. However, what I am saying is growth will continue until aggregate supply becomes perfectly elastic (or inelastic, I always confuse to two terms, lol) Until that point growth can be sustained.

Aggregate supply is currently increasing every year as technology and productivity go up. Eventually, under any system, we will run out of resources to sustain growth. Right wing economists arguing that we will run out of resources at roughly the same time whether or not we restrict supply. This is due to the price incentives that increase efficiency as I explained earlier.

When short run and long run aggregate supply are both equal, maximized and perfectly inelastic (or elastic, I forget lol) then growth has been exhausted and while it is possible to maintain current real GDP, any future growth would only be from inflation.

"As the population increases (and free time to consume information does the same) the possible number of minds to appreciate each piece of creative work likewise increases. Thus the future could easily hold information as the largest industry known to man, beyond weapons, food, or any physical services..."
The information industry is already one of the largest, if not the largest industry we have. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, the worlds most powerful companies are all in the communications and information technologies.

"Not if it costs less to just switch to a new metal/metal substitute. You can make a ton of profit without recycling a resource. And since its cheaper not to pay to recycle the resource it does actually maximize profits. "
Good, if recycling is to expensive then why bother? Eventually as all resources are exhausted then recycling will become more profitable.

but at the moment if we are recycling when it is to expensive to recycle then we are wasting capital and labour resources to recycle when those resources could clearly be put to better use elsewhere.

Remember, profit just means your producing a good that is more valued to consumers then the cost to make it is. If something isn't profitable then it means you have to waste resources to pursue it.

"Appliances like those out of the past (20's 50's (I always confuse the two eras)) Which were easy to repair by yourself, and the associated infrastructure of affordable replacement parts, and lots of mechanics. "
One, ebay, and 2. and try reparing a 20 year old computer. Many can build their own computers now days. And on top of that, we were wasting far more resources 20-50 years ago then we are today. A computer would take up an entire room. A car would break down after a couple years and you would be lucky to get 5000km off it, now days most cars have at least a 100,000km warranty.

Trains are faster and pollute less.

A plane today requires 1/3 of the fuel for the same trip as a plane in the 90s.

We had less roads, buildings etc. so I don't know where your getting the infrastructure component from your argument.

"It's a commonly noted trend, that appliances are being made with cheaper materials and aren't lasting as long. It's not just one lone example of my microwave http://blog.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/2012/04/appliances_just_arent_what_the.html"
http://www.boomerandecho.com/why-todays-appliances-look-good-but-dont-last/

Also, people always remember the past in better light then it actually was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosy_retrospection

"You are only cutting growth in the field if the amount of growth per iteration remains the same. I will admit that iPhones and are not the best example for this however, as, like you said the technology is progressing extremely fast. Almost fast enough to warrant models as frequently as they come out. "
Exactly. The technology is changing fast that models are coming out so quickly. Look at other industries with slower innovation, and they release products less rapidly.

Products in areas with slower innovation also tend to have more durable products. Nobody cares about the durability of a smart phone because the average consumer buys one every 1-3 years.

"Perhaps, or perhaps, as I've been saying our population with stabilize not due to scarcity, but rather due to abundance. (See the first world birth rates.)"
I agree. But a declining population doesn't mean you can't sustain growth. Explained below:

"Frankly infinite economic growth (when you factor for inflation) is unsustainable anyway from my perspective. As when the population levels out, which I believe it will. (Not due to a carrying capacity, due to a decrease in reproductive desire). Constantly increasing spending each quarter means that eventually the people unless they start getting paid more, must spend themselves into debt to keep the economy growing. "
Wealth can be created. The amount of man hours it takes to produce a good today is on average something like 1/16th of the man hours it took to produce good in the 1950s. Due to better infrastructure, better equipment at the factory, etc.

The best example I can think of is farming. We have less farmers in the world today then we did 180 years ago. If an industry can't grow when its labour force is decreasing, why is it that we haven't died of starvation?

"This is a whole rabbit warren in it of itself. Needless to say I disagree whole heartedly about the benefits for the 3rd world. But that is unrelated to the issue at hand, and I'm not getting into it here. "
Economists on the left and on the right disagree with you. The media likes to play it differently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5fzBNO4l4
This one is a 35 minute keynote presentation, so you don't have to watch it, but it explains why sweatshops have done more to benefit the poor in 3rd world countries then foreign aid has.

"I will agree I don't like it there either. When it comes down to it, I don't believe that humanity should be a slave to economic growth, either by requiring it to avoid brutal recessions, or by purposely stunting scientific growth to prevent growth. Both are unacceptable outcomes. "
The goal of economic growth isn't to avoid recessions, its to make the people better off. A recession means we aren't seeing economic growth. Generally during a recession the average wage decreases and unemployment rises which is why recessions are considered bad. Why does this happen?

A recession normally starts when consumption falls. Say I am selling 10 widgets (a generic consumer product that never changes and is always durable for 1 year) 1 year, 12 the next and 15 the next, I am experiencing economic growth. However lets say next year I sell 9 rather then 15. I am in a recession. Say I have 3 people producing widgets for me to sell. Since I am only selling 9 a year, why do I need 3 workers, when I can produce all the nessacary widgets with 2. So, in order to prevent going out of business, I fire a worked.

That worker is now unemployed.

That is a recession, because the demand for products is no longer there (I used an example of 1 product to simplify it, but a recession is never caused by just 1 product, and if the demand for just 1 product decreases, normally consumers use their money to buy different products, eg. rather then buying shoes I am buying a computer. These two products have nothing to do with eachother, but because I am buying less shoes, I can afford to buy more computers. A recession happens when I chose to buy neither shoes or computers)

The point is the goal of economic growth isn't to avoid recessions they are just antonyms. Its like saying the goal of acceleration is to prevent deceleration.

"Or to save money for retirement. Which unless it is invested in new companies isn't contributing to economic growth. "
In the long run you are, since you'll have more money to spend in the future. The only time saving is bad is during a liquidity trap.

"However, my point was that you cannot prove that resources will not run out. "
Most resources are renewable using unsustainable ones will allow us to use more renewable ones in the future.

I'm going to really push this foward and use generic Good A and Good B. Good A is a renewable resource and Good B is not. Good A and Good B are substitute goods that are needed to produce Good C.

If the price at the moment for Good A is $20 and the price of Good B is $5, then we can produce 4 times the amount of Good C if we use Good B.

However because Good B isn't sustainable we will eventually run out of it.

Say after 10 years of using Good B, the price of Good B (due to a decrease in supply) is now $20.01. I can now switch over to Good A and keep producing Good C, however because I took advantage of Good B when it was in abudance, I was able to produce more Good C earlier on meaning I created more growth, and we still got to your desired using nothing but Good A.

Even when Good B isn't sustainable, sustained economic growth can be achieved by using it.

"The Malthusian Hypothesis was all about population growth causing these problems. Since I'm not concerned with the problems of a growing population, I'm not arguing for his hypothesis. "
Thats just an example of a Malthusian Catastrophe, granted it was the example Malthus used. In the 1970s ecologists applied the Malthusian Catastrophe to Oil to say our energy production is not sustainable.

"What I was saying is I don't believe the costs placed on those externalities represent their true value."
Well that would depend on who is defining the externality wouldn't it?

"(These response posts take way too long to write. I'm thinking I may just have to drop out of the argument, and hope some other anti-growth nut takes over for me. ;-) )"
I know, but I enjoy typing them up, this is the most fun I have had all week, lol

You are wrong about emissions per capita as well. In 1980, US emissions per capita were 21 metric tons. In the USSR, it was 11 metric tons. Not even close. If you look at China, emissions in 1980 were 1.5 tons per capita, and by 1990 it was up to 2 tons per capita.

In 1990 the USSR was 14 Metric tons and USA was 18. So they weren't that far off, I read it wrong last time I looked...

No, the USA was 20 and the USSR was 13. I have the table if you want it.

http://www.universal-b.ru/1281406368-2181.html