the environment and economic growth

[Bluegoat]

So, something has been bothering me for a while, and I feel it requires action, but I am really at a loss as far as what I might do.

I feel like we can take it as read that we have a very significant environmental crises on the horizon on many fronts.  Climate change of course, but also direct pollution of the air.  Pollution of water by plastics and chemicals.  Degradation of land through industrial agriculture etc.  And the extinction crises which looks like it is very serious indeed - it looks like many ecosystems are on the verge of collapse and that will put all of us in serious peril.  George Monbiot has been banging on about how there is no more time on these things for a while now, and I agree, but I find it difficult to know what to do.  

So, also, every morning I hear the news right after I wake up.  My alarm goes off and on comes the weather and local headlines for 1/2 hour, and then I have to get out of bed.  The very last thing is always the economic news, the stock levels and maybe a bit on one or two big stories.  Anyway, now and again, and today, it was about worries about the slowing of economic growth.  And this is always treated like a bad thing, a crises.  On the converse, things like people buying more Christmas stuff is treated as good.  It's not that the reporter is a dork or anything, he''s really just talking about the accepted attitude of political types and economists, and what they do about these problems. (And the response time on being heard over these issues is pretty immediate - no farting around waiting to take action.)

It just makes me want to scream - don't you people see that slowing down or heck, even reversing economic growth is an absolute necessity, one that it is becoming almost too late to hope might be effective?  

And its the almost everyday attitude, not even connecting the dots, that I find so upsetting and infuriating.  Every day they report, its good when the stock market is up, bad when it is down.  It's like saying someone's colour looks pleasingly pale when they are bleeding out on the floor.

I thought about maybe writing to the station, or show - I couldn't fid a good address for the show. I don't know if they'd care, they seem to prefer to cover identity politics rather than anything else.  But I don't really know if thats even a useful thing to o, it is really a lot bigger than a stupid radio show.

[regentrude]

I think there is more to economic grow than the manufacturing of goods.  You can have a growing economy where money is spent on services, education, innovation etc, and where jobs are created that don't contribute to, but reduce, environmental pollution.

I agree that we don't need to consume and make more stuff. but 'stuff" is only part of the economy.

[fairfarmhand]

I’m with you. I don’t understand either. 

 

[Bluegoat]

39 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I think there is more to economic grow than the manufacturing of goods.  You can have a growing economy where money is spent on services, education, innovation etc, and where jobs are created that don't contribute to, but reduce, environmental pollution.

I agree that we don't need to consume and make more stuff. but 'stuff" is only part of the economy.

 

I think that is true, but I'd make two points:

1) That is not in fact what is happening - this growth is about stuff to a large degree.  No one talking about kick starting slowing economic growth is saying let's get people to buy services for their Christmas gifts so we can reduce manufacturing.  Or, great, no one is updating their i-things this year, so much less waste!

2) I think the reduction in consumption is going to have to be pretty extreme from western standards, and it will mean a contraction of the economy, even if we start using more services instead.  In fact many services kind of depend on stuff too, and people have time for/can afford them because they have mass manufactured cheap imported goods.  When a good pair of shoes is expensive and something you buy to last for years, that is going to be a significant change in how we think about a good economy.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

So you're lying your warm bed for a half hour listening to news that is broadcast and brought to you via electricity using various limited resources.  Just for context.

A growing economy means more people have jobs.  If your family was headed by one or more unemployed individuals, you would probably not have to ask why economic growth is good.

I would venture to say that most jobs don't destroy the environment any more than listening to the radio at home does.

My job is almost 100% digital.  I work in a 2'x4' space between my bed and my bedroom window (using natural light and air when possible).  I don't think eliminating my job would save any trees or animals.

As for what I consume, the vast majority of dollars I spend go to education and charitable donations.  No apologies.

[SKL]

Needless to say, newer consumer products are often more energy efficient and cleaner than older ones.  There are many things in our economy that are helpful rather than harmful to the environment.  As a consumer, you can choose to use the cleanest and most efficient.

Edited November 14, 2018 by SKL

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

It just makes me want to scream - don't you people see that slowing down or heck, even reversing economic growth is an absolute necessity, one that it is becoming almost too late to hope might be effective?  

And its the almost everyday attitude, not even connecting the dots, that I find so upsetting and infuriating.  Every day they report, its good when the stock market is up, bad when it is down.  It's like saying someone's colour looks pleasingly pale when they are bleeding out on the floor.

I thought about maybe writing to the station, or show - I couldn't fid a good address for the show. I don't know if they'd care, they seem to prefer to cover identity politics rather than anything else.  But I don't really know if thats even a useful thing to o, it is really a lot bigger than a stupid radio show.

No, I do not see that slowing down, or reversing economic growth, an an absolute necessity.  If you are concerned about the environment, I find it more useful to focus on those particular issues.  We could have those same environmental issues without there being economic growth.  

Also, in the short run, the stock market performance and economic growth are not perfectly correlated.  The market has been highly volatile recently; this is not an indication that economic growth is high one day and low the next day.  

 

[Bluegoat]

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

So you're lying your warm bed for a half hour listening to news that is broadcast and brought to you via electricity using various limited resources.  Just for context.

A growing economy means more people have jobs.  If your family was headed by one or more unemployed individuals, you would probably not have to ask why economic growth is good.

I would venture to say that most jobs don't destroy the environment any more than listening to the radio at home does.

My job is almost 100% digital.  I work in a 2'x4' space between my bed and my bedroom window (using natural light and air when possible).  I don't think eliminating my job would save any trees or animals.

As for what I consume, the vast majority of dollars I spend go to education and charitable donations.  No apologies.

 

So, what, shut up unless I sleep in a bush and subsist on locusts?

The frustrating thing is this is a systemic problem.  I can't do much to make a difference only through my actions, it requires mass political action.  

This is not some personal thing about your job.

[Bluegoat]

11 minutes ago, jdahlquist said:

No, I do not see that slowing down, or reversing economic growth, an an absolute necessity.  If you are concerned about the environment, I find it more useful to focus on those particular issues.  We could have those same environmental issues without there being economic growth.  

Also, in the short run, the stock market performance and economic growth are not perfectly correlated.  The market has been highly volatile recently; this is not an indication that economic growth is high one day and low the next day.  

 

 

Do you think going on with the economic wisdom being preached at the IMF, or the Wold Bank, or Germany, or here in Canada with our lovely environmental PM, is likely to result in making the changes needed to address these problems?

The problem is the sense that growth is necessary.  

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

So, what, shut up unless I sleep in a bush and subsist on locusts?

The frustrating thing is this is a systemic problem.  I can't do much to make a difference only through my actions, it requires mass political action.  

This is not some personal thing about your job.

The whole systemic problem thing bugs me.  I don't buy it on this or other issues.  You are part of the system.  Your actions and mine do matter.

As for the armageddon stuff, I don't believe that either.  I've been hearing it my whole life and so far every prediction has proven wrong.  To think that some people are happier seeing folks unemployed because someone planted a doomsday theory is what upsets me.  Do you think unemployed people don't use resources or something?  What about the detrimental effects of unemployment on millions of individuals?

[scholastica]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

The whole systemic problem thing bugs me.  I don't buy it on this or other issues.  You are part of the system.  Your actions and mine do matter.

As for the armageddon stuff, I don't believe that either.  I've been hearing it my whole life and so far every prediction has proven wrong.  To think that some people are happier seeing folks unemployed because someone planted a doomsday theory is what upsets me.  Do you think unemployed people don't use resources or something?  What about the detrimental effects of unemployment on millions of individuals?

I don’t think the OP wants to see people unemployed. She is concerned that an economy based on ever increasing consumption will continue to wreak havoc on the planet. Which it already is.

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

The whole systemic problem thing bugs me.  I don't buy it on this or other issues.  You are part of the system.  Your actions and mine do matter.

As for the armageddon stuff, I don't believe that either.  I've been hearing it my whole life and so far every prediction has proven wrong.  To think that some people are happier seeing folks unemployed because someone planted a doomsday theory is what upsets me.  Do you think unemployed people don't use resources or something?  What about the detrimental effects of unemployment on millions of individuals?

 

If you don't believe it's a serious problem, that's really just it.  There is nothing more to say.

If you thought it was serious, what would you personally do about it, if it's a straightforward as all that?  

It's really not about jobs.

[Bluegoat]

7 minutes ago, scholastica said:

I don’t think the OP wants to see people unemployed. She is concerned that an economy based on ever increasing consumption will continue to wreak havoc on the planet. Which it already is.

 

In any case, I don't think reducing consumption seriously would leave people unemployed in quite the way people are thinking.  It's not like this is a matter of just saying, oh, gee, lets just fire a bunch of people.  

I'm not sure what to do with the idea that there isn't an immediate problem, since it already exists.

[Selkie]

7 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

In any case, I don't think reducing consumption seriously would leave people unemployed in quite the way people are thinking.  It's not like this is a matter of just saying, oh, gee, lets just fire a bunch of people.  

I'm not sure what to do with the idea that there isn't an immediate problem, since it already exists.

???

Reduced consumption means fewer goods and services purchased, which leads to fewer goods and services produced, which leads to fewer jobs.

[SKL]

23 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

If you don't believe it's a serious problem, that's really just it.  There is nothing more to say.

If you thought it was serious, what would you personally do about it, if it's a straightforward as all that?  

It's really not about jobs.

If you think economic health has nothing to do with jobs, we are not on the same planet.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, Selkie said:

???

Reduced consumption means fewer goods and services purchased, which leads to fewer goods and services produced, which leads to fewer jobs.

 

It's not just a matter of reducing jobs in the current way of thinking about the economy.  

People have been employed when there was far less consumption - but what is meant by employment, and what are the methods of production?  If we use more limited types of production, that changes the employment scenario.  A good example is agriculture - sustainable agriculture almost certainly requires far more bodies to accomplish it.

In fact increased technological development has often resulted in reduced numbers of jobs along with an increase in consumer goods. Usually we are told the economy will balance this out in the end.

[SKL]

As for why it's mentioned on the news every day - not only is it of interest to those wanting employment, but also to those whose retirement savings is invested in the stock market.  Which includes people at all levels of wealth and influence.

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

If you think economic health has nothing to do with jobs, we are not on the same planet.

 

Fundamentally the  economy is about having the things we need to live.

[SKL]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

It's not just a matter of reducing jobs in the current way of thinking about the economy.  

People have been employed when there was far less consumption - but what is meant by employment, and what are the methods of production?  If we use more limited types of production, that changes the employment scenario.  A good example is agriculture - sustainable agriculture almost certainly requires far more bodies to accomplish it.

In fact increased technological development has often resulted in reduced numbers of jobs along with an increase in consumer goods. Usually we are told the economy will balance this out in the end.

Did the stats that got you so upset this morning even talk about "consumption" [of physical products] increasing year over year?  Do you even know for a fact that this is happening?

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Fundamentally the  economy is about having the things we need to live.

This conversation reminds me of the person who said why kill cattle when you can just go buy beef at the store.

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

As for why it's mentioned on the news every day - not only is it of interest to those wanting employment, but also to those whose retirement savings is invested in the stock market.  Which includes people at all levels of wealth and influence.

 

Yes, that is why it is mentioned.  My frustration is that these things, and all our assumptions around them,  are pretty intimately attached to this other issue, and they have profound implications for how we view each of them.

If we are serious about the environment - and really, most people are I think - this si something that we should be working really, really hard to connect the dots on and see a way forward.  

[Bluegoat]

You know what, never mind.  I'm going out.

FFS.

[TravelingChris]

Most statistics bear out that rising economic standards improve the environment, not the other way around.  If the politics is taken out of science, we can start observing such trends like the pattern of sunspot activity and its correlation with earth temperatures.  With regards to pollution. when people are employed and living a more comfortable life, they can start paying attention to issues like pollution.  Overall, pollution has decreased a lot since I was a child.  I visited Europe this year and considering I have asthma triggered by air pollution, I was really happy to see that throughout almost all of the world, air pollution has become less of a problem.

[Xuzi]

Bluegoat, I'm absolutely with you on this. It is frustrating and heartbreaking. I'm trying to be hopeful that *some* kind of solution will show itself, but I worry about what kind of planet I'll be leaving to my grandchildren (or if I want grandchildren... I've seriously considered telling my kids to please not reproduce).

[Katy]

The world is getting better all the time. This is the best time to ever be alive. George Monbiot is wrong about a myriad of things according to numerous articles by other environmentalists and environmental authorities. There are already bacteria that eat plastic, as well as many initiatives to reduce plastic use and clean the plastic out of the oceans.  Air pollution has decreased. Food production has increased. As developing nations become richer and as people move away from disposable items to choosing items that last longer there will be less stuff but a higher economy because that stuff will cost more.

I really think you'd feel much better if you diversified your news sources and avoid sources that excessively fear monger.  Yes, there are many problems in the world, but none of them will be solved with panic. And things really are getting better all the time. Here's the tiny bit of proof I came up with in a few minutes:

Vox: The World Is Getting Better All the Time

Forbes: The World is Getting Better And Why Hardly Anyone Knows It

Guardian: Is the World Really Better than Ever?

CapX: The World's Getting Better All the Time

The Better Angels of Our Nature

It's Not News, It's Fark! How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News

NASA Images Highlight US Air Quality Improvement

And finally, 179,000 Google hits on how George Monbiot is Wrong.

 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

 

1 minute ago, Fifiruth said:

There is definately an anti-capitalist message being pushed worldwide. Communism under the guise of environmentalism is the newest approach. The urgency and alarm, the call to systemically chage the world system to keep us all from certain and fast approaching doom is manipulative and fake.

Yes, I did use the overused word, “Fake.”

 

 

Get a grip. Capitalism is thriving the world over, with many more calls for more of the same. There is no risk the world system is going to suddenly "systematically change", but it sure makes for those whose greatest concern is "communism". 

 There is nothing fake about what is happening to the environment, or the Arctic, or the birds, or the great insect collapse (google any one of those). But if you don't believe there is a problem, it's all just "fake", no amount of information otherwise is going to convince you otherwise. Enjoy your daily disposables and carry on. Bluegoat posted about an issue she is struggling with on a daily basis. Really, it's not about your trigger topics. 

 

 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

Bluegoat, I'll pm you. 

[goldberry]

48 minutes ago, Katy said:

The world is getting better all the time. This is the best time to ever be alive. George Monbiot is wrong about a myriad of things according to numerous articles by other environmentalists and environmental authorities. There are already bacteria that eat plastic, as well as many initiatives to reduce plastic use and clean the plastic out of the oceans.  Air pollution has decreased. Food production has increased. As developing nations become richer and as people move away from disposable items to choosing items that last longer there will be less stuff but a higher economy because that stuff will cost more.

I really think you'd feel much better if you diversified your news sources and avoid sources that excessively fear monger.  Yes, there are many problems in the world, but none of them will be solved with panic. And things really are getting better all the time. Here's the tiny bit of proof I came up with in a few minutes:

Vox: The World Is Getting Better All the Time

Forbes: The World is Getting Better And Why Hardly Anyone Knows It

Guardian: Is the World Really Better than Ever?

CapX: The World's Getting Better All the Time

The Better Angels of Our Nature

It's Not News, It's Fark! How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News

NASA Images Highlight US Air Quality Improvement

And finally, 179,000 Google hits on how George Monbiot is Wrong.

 

 

I looked at about 4 of your articles, but none of them seemed to be addressing the issue of global environment, which is the topic of the OP.  What's the point?  That because other areas are progressing that she shouldn't worry about the environment?  Or that we should just assume the environment will follow suit?  Your post seems more about scolding her negativity rather than addressing an actual concern.  There are real environmental concerns that are not fake and are not made up and are not political.  It's not unreasonable to wonder how those are going to play out, especially given the amount of people that dismiss them as fake, made up, and political.

[goldberry]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

In fact increased technological development has often resulted in reduced numbers of jobs along with an increase in consumer goods. Usually we are told the economy will balance this out in the end.

 

Ain't that the truth...

[SKL]

Just now, goldberry said:

I looked at about 4 of your articles, but none of them seemed to be addressing the issue of global environment, which is the topic of the OP.  What's the point?  That because other areas are progressing that she shouldn't worry about the environment?  Or that we should just assume the environment will follow suit?  Your post seems more about scolding her negativity rather than addressing an actual concern.  There are real environmental concerns that are not fake and are not made up and are not political.  It's not unreasonable to wonder how those are going to play out, especially given the amount of people that dismiss them as fake, made up, and political.

As has been pointed out at least 3 different ways on this thread and Katy's links, the environment is improving, and statistically it improves as the economy improves.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

37 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

There is definately an anti-capitalist message being pushed worldwide. Communism under the guise of environmentalism is the newest approach. The urgency and alarm, the call to systemically chage the world system to keep us all from certain and fast approaching doom is manipulative and fake.

Yes, I did use the overused word, “Fake.”

 

I'm pretty sure I'm on the opposite side of the argument from you, but I have to disagree with this - I think your premise is outdated. While being a person who does care very much about the environment, I thought I saw the bolded approach attempted awhile ago. Not lately.

Lately, I have noticed that environmental awareness is out of fashion.

No "reduce, reuse, recycle."

No "give a hoot, don't pollute."

No morality/values attached to frugality and careful stewardship.

No overwhelming national emotional, financial, or political investment in holding our national parks and protected lands sacred for the future.

No discussion of where our clothes come from, and what pollution has happened due to the clothing industry.

I don't mean that there is none of this anywhere; obviously, I am informed and I had to get my information from others. National news outlets do cover these topics. But I just mean in daily conversation, I am not hearing these ideals, even on people's back burner. They're off the stove entirely. Cold topics. Expired concerns.

I think we are less concerned about the environment and our planet's (and our children's) future than we've ever been. If you follow how young families are living and spending, there is a new emphasis on convenience, as people seem to find daily life extremely overwhelming. I'm not denying that it is; the information age is exhausting. But I've never felt like I needed to buy an overpriced, overpackaged, over-processed dinner from a delivery service on the other side of town, to cope with stress at suppertime. I would just make some vegetable soup, or eggs and toast...I don't reward myself for my stress with overconsumption. 

When was the last time we saw frugality, savings, and DIY skills as American values? I think it was the Dave Ramsey movement, which has its issues (including the fact that his arguments were outdated by the time the book hit the shelves, due to the 2008 recession), but that was the last cultural "sweep" that had to do with frugality...and as Amy Dacyczyn pointed out in the Tightwad Gazette during my early marriage and childrearing days, there's a lot of overlap between frugality, stewardship, and environmentalism.

In contrast, in recent years, people have literally (and not unkindly) told me that I live like Little House on the Prairie, or like mountain people. Whatever that means. They didn't mean to insult me; they just thought I was more than a little eccentric for cooking my stew from scratch and hanging laundry on the clothesline. And do NOT mention mending to anyone. Just don't.

I am sure this is regional, and I'm aware of young families who are learning and applying old skills. They're not invisible to me. But our national conversation has moved on - mostly we are quite bored with the thought of saving the rainforest or oceans. And climate change is so politicized that people refuse to even discuss it.

Ostrich.

Head in the sand.

Just buy a new one, it's fine.

We're too busy to worry about it.

If some of the children have lunchables and plastic athleisure, I don't want my child to feel left out or judged.

(New parlance) You are SO extra, with your patched jeans and your homemade bread.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Lang Syne Boardie

[goldberry]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

As has been pointed out at least 3 different ways on this thread and Katy's links, the environment is improving, and statistically it improves as the economy improves.

I'm not sure what you are referring to?  Regarding the global environment? Not air quality in one area, not new technologies available but that are not being used or are being used in a limited way but are not affecting anything yet, or *ideas* being researched about how to solve a problem.  Or perhaps programs that have been successful enough that the very success is being used as an argument to stop or cut back those programs, because "it's not that bad now".  I don't feel hopeful about our global environment at all.  Greed wins out over environment every single time, and I don't see that changing.

[SKL]

Well I'm not sure a study has been done on whether each family cooking its own meals in/on separate stoves 3x a day is better for the environment than mass production.  Just saying.

[SKL]

We don't hear a lot of hoopla about reduce, reuse, recycle because it's become a normal part of most people's day.  Even my old 60yo friend, a very busy businesswoman, separates out her work and personal garbage continuously.  Kitchens and garages generally have 2 or more different trash receptacles.  People expect manufacturers to use recycled materials to the extent reasonable.  And in real life, there are few people who actually go out of their way to have more stuff than they need.  Most people are still on a budget.

I would also note that the recent popularity of organic everything is not "talked about" although people vote with their pocketbook.  The availability of organics has increased exponentially in recent years.

Edited November 14, 2018 by SKL

[regentrude]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

We don't hear a lot of hoopla about reduce, reuse, recycle because it's become a normal part of most people's day.

... and yet Americans use 50 billion plastic water bottles each year. Obviously, people still have no clue about the environmental impact. recycling alone doesn't cut it

[scholastica]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

We don't hear a lot of hoopla about reduce, reuse, recycle because it's become a normal part of most people's day.  Even my old 60yo friend, a very busy businesswoman, separates out her work and personal garbage continuously.  Kitchens and garages generally have 2 or more different trash receptacles.  People expect manufacturers to use recycled materials to the extent reasonable.  And in real life, there are few people who actually go out of their way to have more stuff than they need.  Most people are still on a budget.

I would also note that the recent popularity of organic everything is not "talked about" although people vote with their pocketbook.  The availability of organics has increased exponentially in recent years.

 It organic isn’t what it used to be. It’s now from huge farming operations trucking the stuff all over the country. That uses fossil fuel and pollutes the environment.

[barnwife]

Organic has always been more fossil fuel use, twenty hippies driving 50 miles each with a trunk full of vegetables is NOT more efficient than a truckload from CA.  Unless you're talking about grass fed livestock, but the methane...

I agree with bluegoat's point about the hype over the economy being a little narrowly focused.  I think it's really too much to expect of a journalist to see the big picture.  Especially on scientific subjects, a journalist that understands the science might not understand the big picture, and a big picture journalist probably doesn't understand the science. 

The old criticism of GDP is that a wildfire and a hurricane are the best things for the GDP.  Economists count "losses" as GDP "gains" (if they're rebuilt, repaired etc).  Something like 2/3 of the US economy is consumer spending, and I disagree that our economy is moving towards better built and longer lasting consumer goods.  If anything it's moving towards more disposable goods.  Cars are one exception, they have steadily improved in quality and longevity, however they have greatly increased in complexity (for other reasons) and as labor rates have increased (and I would argue, labor skill and ambition have decreased) the potential efficiency and longevity gains haven't fully materialized. IE cars are junked because it's cheaper to buy a new one than fix the old one, and that's because cars are built "disposable" and mechanics aren't cheap enough to fix them economically. 

Houses on the other hand have gone down in quality of construction dramatically in spite of great improvements in materials, and at the same time they've increased in size, all for smaller families.  I'm talking about the quality of construction that will last more than a generation without repairs that exceed the original cost.  High wages, high interest rates, and high growth all factor into this disposable trend.  Hasn't anybody ever heard of the 70's? 

Yes, bluegoat or anybody else could take what's left of their paycheck after buying rice and beans for the month and build a quality house that would be mostly an investment, instead of the typical American house that puts much more money into particle board cabinets and granite countertops that will be shag carpet in ten years, than into improved windows and insulation.  Very few people do that.  The median household net wealth in the US is $68,000, that's not because there's not money moving around the economy, it's because that money gets spent on disposable goods. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by barnwife

[SKL]

While people are going on about how organic food is bad for the environment, I recall somewhere reading that the internet is extremely hard on the environment.  So far I haven't heard of any efforts to address that.

[moonflower]

I agree with the three possibilities scenario, and with the third possibility, the one being proposed/lamented here, as basically unrealistic.  You want humanity as a whole to do something humanity has never done? (that is, willfully stop reproducing and creating and consuming and etc.)?  Not going to happen.  

Even if we in the West decided for some reason to do this, and it would take a massive amount of social control that the West is really not known for to achieve it, there's still all the huge developing nations.  China and India and etc. aren't going to just say, oh well, guess you guys got to middle class comfort and security and ease of living first (by using lots of resources), we'll just not bother ever getting there because you guys got to it first and used it all up and so we'll take the fall for it.

hahaha no.

I am hopeful about innovation; my pessimistic side says massive die-off via war or plague or something else, exacerbated by modern centralization and the dependency of so many on so few for things like food production and energy production and logistic, will just reduce population to a manageable level.

[Scarlett]

7 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Do you think going on with the economic wisdom being preached at the IMF, or the Wold Bank, or Germany, or here in Canada with our lovely environmental PM, is likely to result in making the changes needed to address these problems?

The problem is the sense that growth is necessary.  

I will fully admit to not being terribly smart about economics.  But I OFTEN think how does this end, all this growth?  How can it just keep on, and if it does at what point is it artificial?  These are similar questions I had at about age 8 when I wondered if all the goods in the world were divided by all the people, would everyone have enough.  

[Bluegoat]

Here is the thing.  I'm not interested in discussing whether there is really an environmental crises.  As far as I am concerned, that is tin foil hat territory.  The oceans are filled with plastic and the fis populations are crashing.  People I know are living in places where permafrost is no longer permanent and their houses are subsiding, not to mention the methane that's being released that will make it worse.  It looks like we will see 30% of species, by a conservative estimate, go extinct in the nest 30 years or so.  All the markers that scientists have talked about are coming to pass are happening, except faster than they thought.

What I am interested in is the response to this.  I live in a country where this problem is publicly accepted, including by the government - the PM likes to consider himself an environmentalist and to make political hay out of it.   There are lots of other countries like that, notwithstanding the US.  So, what is the issue.  Twenty years ago talking about radical reduction of consumption was a real conversation, people talked a lot about how that might look, what it might mean in terms of an economic paradigm, how much is really required for a good life.  Now, we don't hear a whisper even from the woke.  People seem to think that everything we have and do is a necessity, we can't do without it.  It kind of reminds me of the way some people who grew up without cell phones and never thought they were missing out on something essential now seem to be unable to imagine how to could get along without one.

As far as it goes, I think the three scenarios are probably about right, maybe there are some sub-catagories.  I do not think that the technological solution ca work in the long term even if it buys time - I think even technology cannot compensate for an ideology that is without limits.  I am not quite so pessimistic that people could change their course.  I have significant doubts that they will, but I think it could happen.  I think it would require one of two things - one being some kind of powerful authoritarian governance.  I actually think that countries like CHina might actually accomplish something like this at some point - they are not stupid people and they understand what is happening and see the danger.    Their culture is also perhaps better equipped to accept the idea of acting for the good of the whole.  The other would be some kind of significant spiritual change in thinking.  

My guess is it will be serious repercussions. 

[TravelingChris]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I will fully admit to not being terribly smart about economics.  But I OFTEN think how does this end, all this growth?  How can it just keep on, and if it does at what point is it artificial?  These are similar questions I had at about age 8 when I wondered if all the goods in the world were divided by all the people, would everyone have enough.  

Economics is not a zero-sum game.  The economy grows because people produce things and ideas that others buy.  There isn't a pile of money or gold or what have you that we can divy up and share.    It can keep going on and has been going on with occasional setbacks or slowdowns.  Some countries do go back-  witness what is happening in Venezuela.  But economic idiotic ideas and catastrophes of various kinds can really slow down or reverse course.  But for the most part, for most countries, we just keep chugging along.  A lot of the more interesting developments in economic theory in the last 20 or so years has been behavioral economics. 

[maize]

Economic growth in recent decades has been primarily about enriching a few. This is from 2012 and the disparity has only gotten worse since then.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/18/shrink-inequality-to-grow-the-economy/when-economic-growth-benefits-only-a-few

[moonflower]

44 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Here is the thing.  I'm not interested in discussing whether there is really an environmental crises.  As far as I am concerned, that is tin foil hat territory.  The oceans are filled with plastic and the fis populations are crashing.  People I know are living in places where permafrost is no longer permanent and their houses are subsiding, not to mention the methane that's being released that will make it worse.  It looks like we will see 30% of species, by a conservative estimate, go extinct in the nest 30 years or so.  All the markers that scientists have talked about are coming to pass are happening, except faster than they thought.

What I am interested in is the response to this.  I live in a country where this problem is publicly accepted, including by the government - the PM likes to consider himself an environmentalist and to make political hay out of it.   There are lots of other countries like that, notwithstanding the US.  So, what is the issue.  Twenty years ago talking about radical reduction of consumption was a real conversation, people talked a lot about how that might look, what it might mean in terms of an economic paradigm, how much is really required for a good life.  Now, we don't hear a whisper even from the woke.  People seem to think that everything we have and do is a necessity, we can't do without it.  It kind of reminds me of the way some people who grew up without cell phones and never thought they were missing out on something essential now seem to be unable to imagine how to could get along without one.

As far as it goes, I think the three scenarios are probably about right, maybe there are some sub-catagories.  I do not think that the technological solution ca work in the long term even if it buys time - I think even technology cannot compensate for an ideology that is without limits.  I am not quite so pessimistic that people could change their course.  I have significant doubts that they will, but I think it could happen.  I think it would require one of two things - one being some kind of powerful authoritarian governance.  I actually think that countries like CHina might actually accomplish something like this at some point - they are not stupid people and they understand what is happening and see the danger.    Their culture is also perhaps better equipped to accept the idea of acting for the good of the whole.  The other would be some kind of significant spiritual change in thinking.  

My guess is it will be serious repercussions. 

 

I don't disagree, but do you not think we might achieve colonization of other planets?

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, moonflower said:

 

I don't disagree, but do you not think we might achieve colonization of other planets?

How will that help? We have what we need here on this planet at the moment, for the people who are here.  The problem is inequality. That has always been the problem. 

[moonflower]

Here's a related thing people seem generally unwilling to discuss: WW3.  If you even say WW3 people tend to do a sort of oh, here we go again sigh.  But when in the history of humanity have we avoided going to war forever? And when have we been both so centrally dependent (and so vulnerable to collapse) and so technologically capable?  We had weapons that could literally wipe out all of humanity decades ago.  Do we think governments have not developed anything superior to those since then?  That no one is constructing, say, nano-bots, or plagues, or bombs that can set off tsunamis?  It sounds like sci-fi, but the bomb sounded like sci-fi in the 20s.

[Bluegoat]

9 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

I don't disagree, but do you not think we might achieve colonization of other planets?

 

Well, maybe, though I don't think that could happen soon enough to avoid the problem.  But then it's still the same issue, isn't it?  And space travel at this point is resource heavy.

This whole idea of endless wanting always reminds me of Hungry Mungry.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

8 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I suppose the utterly catastrophic things are so far out of our control, that it almost becomes a waste of emotional energy contemplating them. 

It's interesting though, and I can't say I've ever assumed - even while reading Pinker - that global warfare was done and dusted with the 20thC.

 

 

 

I really think Pinker is living in some kind of alternate reality on this issue.  I've wondered if he really had to realise that we are not on some kind of track to inevitable progress, what that would mean for him intellectually or spiritually or whatever the right word is.  A lot seems to hang on that for him.

[livetoread]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I really think Pinker is living in some kind of alternate reality on this issue.  I've wondered if he really had to realise that we are not on some kind of track to inevitable progress, what that would mean for him intellectually or spiritually or whatever the right word is.  A lot seems to hang on that for him.

Does he think that progress is inevitable? I haven’t read his book, just interviews, etc., so I’m not giving an informed opinion, but my impression was different. I thought he was making the point that we have made enormous strides in widening our circle of empathy and caring about others outside our immediate tribe. I think that’s true, and that when we look at our trajectory over time, we have gotten more humane, not less. However (and it’s a big however) we also have the means now to inflict damage on each other on a much greater scale, and so when we do mess up, the costs are greater. 

 

[Bluegoat]

23 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Does he think that progress is inevitable? I haven’t read his book, just interviews, etc., so I’m not giving an informed opinion, but my impression was different. I thought he was making the point that we have made enormous strides in widening our circle of empathy and caring about others outside our immediate tribe. I think that’s true, and that when we look at our trajectory over time, we have gotten more humane, not less. However (and it’s a big however) we also have the means now to inflict damage on each other on a much greater scale, and so when we do mess up, the costs are greater. 

 

 

His underlying assumption is that the values of the Enlightenment are true values and have and will lead us to an ever improving society so long as we stay true to them. That's the basis for his wanting to show that things are getting better - it's a kind of backwards argument for the Enlightenment (or what he thinks the Enlightenment was about.)