tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568852931152106119.post7596703100258005090..comments2024-03-17T18:53:05.139-07:00Comments on CycaLogical: The End of Growth?crossriderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00896858165635612158noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568852931152106119.post-46902509223866261432011-10-18T02:47:32.831-07:002011-10-18T02:47:32.831-07:00There's a fourth thing you didn't mention ...There's a fourth thing you didn't mention - in the past our growth was largely fuelled by a combination of taw materials and commodities bought cheaply from the "third world" and lack of competition from said 3rd world for our manufactured goods. We have now lost both ina "paradigm shift". From now on commodities like copper are going to be a lot more expensive due to the demand from major emerging economies such as India, China, Brazil. China in particular has been "investing" in mineral-rich or agriculturally promising African states to corner their supplies of raw materials and food commodities. Meanwhile those same countries can now make what we can make, only cheaper. Our entirely undeserved advantages in this area have therefore been lost, forever.<br /><br />On the other hand, growth doesn't have to be about more cars or more oil or more iphones. We could be the leader in renewable energy with massive offshore windfarms or tidal/wave generation schemes. As I poersonally know, you can put £20k into the economy buying a solar water heating array to heat a swimming pool - it comes with an output meter where you can see the KwH of energy it produces in real time, and the read-out is seriously impressive. It already saves several £hundreds a year and if energy prices rise by 10% pa (an otherwise optimistic view) will pay for itself in 7 years.<br /><br />And yes, we could start building bicycles again, if only we could get away from our national fixation with the notion that a bike should cost no more than £100 so only Taiwan can build them.Paul Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929808238663838155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568852931152106119.post-12821001529116569552011-10-17T00:53:59.963-07:002011-10-17T00:53:59.963-07:00Even if we could develop a science-fictionesque in...Even if we could develop a science-fictionesque instantaneous mass transport to the stars, we would only postpone the evil day for an amazingly short time [it's that devilish exponential again]. The universe is finite too and we could fill it if we had the technology. So 'growth' in the setting of finite resources is the enemy. So we'd better sort out the growth, before it sort us out with the inevitable crunch.amoebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15783694650121687459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568852931152106119.post-18877711729299405132011-10-17T00:36:33.089-07:002011-10-17T00:36:33.089-07:00The really scary idea is this (it is not mine):
Al...The really scary idea is this (it is not mine):<br />All governments seem to think that growth is good. However, economic growth does not exist in a vacuum. With economic growth comes consumption of real-world, physical goods. Physical goods require resources – energy and stuff to make them from.<br /><br />By definition a maintained growth of X% per fixed time interval is exponential.<br /><br />Unless I am mistaken, the Earth's size, land area and its natural resources are finite.<br /><br />Perhaps somebody, or anybody might explain precisely and clearly how the planet's size and its resources are increasing to accommodate this sustained exponential growth?<br />I fully expect that nobody will provide a credible explanation.<br /><br />http://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_part_4.htmlamoebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15783694650121687459noreply@blogger.com