"Sustainable Energy" Perpetual Growth Impossible
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
I don't think the future is all that dreadful.
Population will peak over the next few decades and then decline.
The developed world already has below replacement rate birthrates, and the less developed world does not grow exponentially as a consequence of war, famine and disease, the same things that limited European population for centuries.
WRT energy demand, pricing will exert a brake on its growth, and we see that hapening even now.
WRT eceonomic growth, we now see the highest growth in knowldge based industries, which have relatively low energy requirements both for their production and their use.
There is no limit to economic growth, but it will come in different forms.
We will enter a post-industrial and post-materialist age, because people are already becoming jaded with consumption of goods in the developed world, and because prices will make continued consumption of material goods unattractive.
WRT the source you link to, forty years ago the Club of Rome was telling us the very same thing.
Population will peak over the next few decades and then decline.
The developed world already has below replacement rate birthrates, and the less developed world does not grow exponentially as a consequence of war, famine and disease, the same things that limited European population for centuries.
WRT energy demand, pricing will exert a brake on its growth, and we see that hapening even now.
WRT eceonomic growth, we now see the highest growth in knowldge based industries, which have relatively low energy requirements both for their production and their use.
There is no limit to economic growth, but it will come in different forms.
We will enter a post-industrial and post-materialist age, because people are already becoming jaded with consumption of goods in the developed world, and because prices will make continued consumption of material goods unattractive.
WRT the source you link to, forty years ago the Club of Rome was telling us the very same thing.
WRT the club of Rome, and being a mechanical engineer, a book that I read probably about that time was "Factor 4", showing how it was possible to double the population, and halve resource utilisation.
It was a very good book (and non-judgemental, unlike burn, and revenge of Gaia), basically telling technicalsoultions for efficiency, and I applied a lot of it in my work wherever I could
It was a very good book (and non-judgemental, unlike burn, and revenge of Gaia), basically telling technicalsoultions for efficiency, and I applied a lot of it in my work wherever I could
I was thinking of "Limits to Growth" when I mentioned the Club of Rome.
You will find that there is a sharp divide between those in the natural sciences, who find the predictions then made to be very close to what's actually happened in the intervening decades and economists, who scoffed at the work then and still do.
Don't underestimate the power of pricing in reducing resource use and encouraging new technical development.
Technical developments that would have made no sense in a world of cheap energy become feasible as energy grows more costly.
I also think it's interesting that in the world of today, the most profitable enterprise is neither primarily a manufacturer nor a petroleum producer, but rather derives most of its net income from selling IP product over the internet, with negligible energy consumption per unit of output.
The world, its enterprises and its people change in concert with changing realities, with reality defined by relative price.
Perhaps the only question is whether resource and energy use will decline rapidly enough and whether population will stabilize soon enough.
You will find that there is a sharp divide between those in the natural sciences, who find the predictions then made to be very close to what's actually happened in the intervening decades and economists, who scoffed at the work then and still do.
Don't underestimate the power of pricing in reducing resource use and encouraging new technical development.
Technical developments that would have made no sense in a world of cheap energy become feasible as energy grows more costly.
I also think it's interesting that in the world of today, the most profitable enterprise is neither primarily a manufacturer nor a petroleum producer, but rather derives most of its net income from selling IP product over the internet, with negligible energy consumption per unit of output.
The world, its enterprises and its people change in concert with changing realities, with reality defined by relative price.
Perhaps the only question is whether resource and energy use will decline rapidly enough and whether population will stabilize soon enough.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
And he saves the real point for the last sentence. If only the general population were intelligent enough to allow the "smart people" (like himself) to come in and run a "steady state" economy, things would be so much better!
This is no different a goal than every central planning scheme on the planet, but it's nice that his articles makes a clear connection between "sustainability" and the central planning it's pushers advocate.
I think "collectively" is not quite the word choice as intended. Market force will be the right word.
200 years ago family have children nonstop, and let nature take the unfit.
60 years ago family tends to have 4-6 children
20 years ago family tends to have 2-4 children
Today, my friends tend to have 0-2 children, and a lot of them decide not to get married at all as they cannot afford it or do not want to be burdened by child care.
You are free to do what you want, as long as you can afford it and do not whine about your "reproductive right" being taken by the "market", or blame "the man" for not able to afford your "reproductive right".
And he saves the real point for the last sentence. If only the general population were intelligent enough to allow the "smart people" (like himself) to come in and run a "steady state" economy, things would be so much better!
This is no different a goal than every central planning scheme on the planet, but it's nice that his articles makes a clear connection between "sustainability" and the central planning it's pushers advocate.
I think "collectively" is not quite the word choice as intended. Market force will be the right word.
200 years ago family have children nonstop, and let nature take the unfit.
60 years ago family tends to have 4-6 children
20 years ago family tends to have 2-4 children
Today, my friends tend to have 0-2 children, and a lot of them decide not to get married at all as they cannot afford it or do not want to be burdened by child care.
You are free to do what you want, as long as you can afford it and do not whine about your "reproductive right" being taken by the "market", or blame "the man" for not able to afford your "reproductive right".
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So tempest...is perpetual exponential growth even a remote possibility (regardless of sensibilities) ?
When every 17 or so years, more has been consumed in all of history combined, what's the "market's" plan but to head off a cliff or into a brick wall ?
What is government's plan?
Massive Ponzi schemes for retirement/healthcare, massive debt, mass digitizing of money to keep inflating an economic bubble, cost estimates that double in just 2 years, mass devaluation of the dollar, economic ups and downs that were supposed to be "solved" via the FED, massive subsidy programs to keep economically unviable/wasteful programs/behaviors alive, several decades of becoming more dependent on foreign oil when promising to make us less dependent.....
Does any of that sound "sustainable" to you? Yet people want an organization with that track record (actually far worse) to be planning every aspect of "sustainability"?
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
Since you like to read, please pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. This book will teach anyone how economics really works.
So tempest...is perpetual exponential growth even a remote possibility (regardless of sensibilities) ?
When every 17 or so years, more has been consumed in all of history combined, what's the "market's" plan but to head off a cliff or into a brick wall ?
What is government's plan?
Massive Ponzi schemes for retirement/healthcare, massive debt, mass digitizing of money to keep inflating an economic bubble, cost estimates that double in just 2 years, mass devaluation of the dollar, economic ups and downs that were supposed to be "solved" via the FED, massive subsidy programs to keep economically unviable/wasteful programs/behaviors alive, several decades of becoming more dependent on foreign oil when promising to make us less dependent.....
Does any of that sound "sustainable" to you? Yet people want an organization with that track record (actually far worse) to be planning every aspect of "sustainability"?
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
Since you like to read, please pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. This book will teach anyone how economics really works.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So tempest...is perpetual exponential growth even a remote possibility (regardless of sensibilities) ?
When every 17 or so years, more has been consumed in all of history combined, what's the "market's" plan but to head off a cliff or into a brick wall ?
What is government's plan?
Massive Ponzi schemes for retirement/healthcare, massive debt, mass digitizing of money to keep inflating an economic bubble, cost estimates that double in just 2 years, mass devaluation of the dollar, economic ups and downs that were supposed to be "solved" via the FED, massive subsidy programs to keep economically unviable/wasteful programs/behaviors alive, several decades of becoming more dependent on foreign oil when promising to make us less dependent.....
Does any of that sound "sustainable" to you? Yet people want an organization with that track record (actually far worse) to be planning every aspect of "sustainability"?
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
Since you like to read, please pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. This book will teach anyone how economics really works.
Outstanding post. One particular thing you said could not be more true:
""Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing."
People had better seriously wake up really fast and figure that out. Check out the following threads (they are very long, but well worth the read):
Real growth has, in fact, no limits--"sustainable living" is a fictitious narrative
"Climate Change", fake energy ...ics in disguise
That should keep you busy for awhile.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So tempest...is perpetual exponential growth even a remote possibility (regardless of sensibilities) ?
When every 17 or so years, more has been consumed in all of history combined, what's the "market's" plan but to head off a cliff or into a brick wall ?
What is government's plan?
Massive Ponzi schemes for retirement/healthcare, massive debt, mass digitizing of money to keep inflating an economic bubble, cost estimates that double in just 2 years, mass devaluation of the dollar, economic ups and downs that were supposed to be "solved" via the FED, massive subsidy programs to keep economically unviable/wasteful programs/behaviors alive, several decades of becoming more dependent on foreign oil when promising to make us less dependent.....
Does any of that sound "sustainable" to you? Yet people want an organization with that track record (actually far worse) to be planning every aspect of "sustainability"?
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
Since you like to read, please pick up a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. This book will teach anyone how economics really works.
Outstanding post. One particular thing you said could not be more true:
""Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing."
People had better seriously wake up really fast and figure that out. Check out the following threads (they are very long, but well worth the read):
Real growth has, in fact, no limits--"sustainable living" is a fictitious narrative
"Climate Change", fake energy ...ics in disguise
That should keep you busy for awhile.
Last edited:
LOL, that first link is an absolute pearl.
It's not growth, it's multiplication which is different...and the lily pond stopping growing when it uses up the pond space is exactly what I'm talking about...we can't grow bigger than the pond that we are in.
It's not growth, it's multiplication which is different...and the lily pond stopping growing when it uses up the pond space is exactly what I'm talking about...we can't grow bigger than the pond that we are in.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
Nope, it is about planning ahead of time so you will not be caught with your pants down when "market economy" suddenly hit you in the back of your head.
Have you seen how spontaneous development without any plan looks like? Go look at a city in China and how every street is packed with car and a traffic jam of 10 hours look like. That's how a sudden market economy based distributed decision making by individuals look like with no urban planning from years ahead. Change that to everyone driving SUV and suddenly energy price goes through the roof (i.e. due to nuke accidents, oil blockade, pipeline rupture, etc), and see how market economy treat you in the worst case scenario.
Quote:
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
They know based on long term forecast, and I'd say at least they know better than individual SUV driver who buy based on the gas price of the last 18 months instead of "the man" who based on how fast Russia is pumping and how fast China is burning.
Quote:
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
In non natural resource, your assumption make quite a lot of senses.
In nationalized and strategic resource like oil, gas, coal, electrical grid, minerals, and the rights to harvest these resources, you will never ever get rid of governments because it is competitions between governments.
We had Standard Oil back when oil is not "government controlled", why would you think it will be different when government stays hand free this time?
"Sustainability" is nothing but a euphemism for rationing. Rationing outside of a free market is done via central planning. Why are the people in government so magical that they can ration resources more efficiently than can people making up their own minds? What superior insight do they have?
Nope, it is about planning ahead of time so you will not be caught with your pants down when "market economy" suddenly hit you in the back of your head.
Have you seen how spontaneous development without any plan looks like? Go look at a city in China and how every street is packed with car and a traffic jam of 10 hours look like. That's how a sudden market economy based distributed decision making by individuals look like with no urban planning from years ahead. Change that to everyone driving SUV and suddenly energy price goes through the roof (i.e. due to nuke accidents, oil blockade, pipeline rupture, etc), and see how market economy treat you in the worst case scenario.
Quote:
How do they know how much oil is needed by the people of the world? Where should it go? In what quantity? In what quality? PRICES cause a spontaneous order which allocates resources far greater than any commission of "experts". And because prices fluctuate on a daily bases, they are able to send signals to the market far faster than a government "panel" which can take years to come to a "conclusion" that has no basis in economic reality.
They know based on long term forecast, and I'd say at least they know better than individual SUV driver who buy based on the gas price of the last 18 months instead of "the man" who based on how fast Russia is pumping and how fast China is burning.
Quote:
Governments forcefully take money from other people. This means that they have little incentive to spend it wisely. This is why subsidizing bad behavior over a long time is possible with governments. Private enterprises/people can't afford this for long or they go broke/starve. Just this one fact (there are others) makes the free market far better at resource allocation and "sustainability" than ANY government body. The free market FORCES individual people to use resources efficiently, where as government spends for the benefit of those that control it.
In non natural resource, your assumption make quite a lot of senses.
In nationalized and strategic resource like oil, gas, coal, electrical grid, minerals, and the rights to harvest these resources, you will never ever get rid of governments because it is competitions between governments.
We had Standard Oil back when oil is not "government controlled", why would you think it will be different when government stays hand free this time?
read in a book recently (Can't recall which one, possibly one by Tim Flannery (FLAME SUIT "ON")) that our energy use is about 500 years of temperate forest growth back in the triassic/jurassic etc coal deposits, for every 1 year of today's energy use.
Using 500 years of sunlight every 1 year today to power ourselves along.
Using 500 years of sunlight every 1 year today to power ourselves along.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: crinkles
read in a book recently (Can't recall which one, possibly one by Tim Flannery (FLAME SUIT "ON")) that our energy use is about 500 years of temperate forest growth back in the triassic/jurassic etc coal deposits, for every 1 year of today's energy use.
Using 500 years of sunlight every 1 year today to power ourselves along.
I would believe this. As I've said all along, the issue of crude, coal and related energy sources being renewable is highly irrelevant if the kinetics of the natural process are too slow compared to the rate of extraction.
While it may make some feel good to think it is renewable, even if it is, replenishment rate is the key to determining if it is practical.
read in a book recently (Can't recall which one, possibly one by Tim Flannery (FLAME SUIT "ON")) that our energy use is about 500 years of temperate forest growth back in the triassic/jurassic etc coal deposits, for every 1 year of today's energy use.
Using 500 years of sunlight every 1 year today to power ourselves along.
I would believe this. As I've said all along, the issue of crude, coal and related energy sources being renewable is highly irrelevant if the kinetics of the natural process are too slow compared to the rate of extraction.
While it may make some feel good to think it is renewable, even if it is, replenishment rate is the key to determining if it is practical.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Today, my friends tend to have 0-2 children, and a lot of them decide not to get married at all as they cannot afford it or do not want to be burdened by child care.
You are free to do what you want, as long as you can afford it and do not whine about your "reproductive right" being taken by the "market", or blame "the man" for not able to afford your "reproductive right".
Yes, some of my friends do too, but it is merely from being caught up in the advertising-mall-consumer-car culture.
It is entirely doable to live even with just one wage earner, even in high cost places like NJ. You just learn that some of the garbage that is sold at excessive prices but yields zero value besides some marginal entertainment that lasts a few minutes. So many issues are based upon the stupidity of our consumer culture.
And plenty of folks have 4 kids and zero issues, today.
But it is the matter of need, IMO that drives it. Some need a big family even today, as it brings them happiness, and with the slightest care and practical financial thought, it is very doable.
Today, my friends tend to have 0-2 children, and a lot of them decide not to get married at all as they cannot afford it or do not want to be burdened by child care.
You are free to do what you want, as long as you can afford it and do not whine about your "reproductive right" being taken by the "market", or blame "the man" for not able to afford your "reproductive right".
Yes, some of my friends do too, but it is merely from being caught up in the advertising-mall-consumer-car culture.
It is entirely doable to live even with just one wage earner, even in high cost places like NJ. You just learn that some of the garbage that is sold at excessive prices but yields zero value besides some marginal entertainment that lasts a few minutes. So many issues are based upon the stupidity of our consumer culture.
And plenty of folks have 4 kids and zero issues, today.
But it is the matter of need, IMO that drives it. Some need a big family even today, as it brings them happiness, and with the slightest care and practical financial thought, it is very doable.
- Status
Similar threads
