By Bernard Hickey
Just imagine if economic growth wasn't a natural thing.
What if the extraordinary growth seen throughout the developed and developing world since 1700 ended around the turn of the century?
What if the long term growth assumption of around 2-3% per annum ad infinitum was actually wrong?
How would that change our view of our economy, our social development and our political outlooks?
That's the debate sparked in the last month internationally by a stunning academic paper from respected US economist Robert J Gordon titled: "Is US Economic Growth Over: Faltering Innovation Confronts The 6 Headwinds".
If proven, the implications of his thesis are profoundly sobering.
Gordon argues there was very little real economic growth per capita before 1700. Since then three eras of innovation have powered amazing growth.
The first era from 1750 to 1830 included the invention of steam and railroads. The second era from 1870 to 1900 was the most productive, including the invention of the internal combustion engine, chemicals, petroleum, plumbing and communications. The third era after 1960 saw the creation of computers, mobile phones and the Internet.
Gordon argues the second era created the most growth, while the third era's boost to growth was relatively short-lived and ended around 2004.
 |
| Robert J. Gordon |
He says growth in developed economies such as the United States may drop to less than half the rate seen since 1870 as innovation battles the six headwinds of demography (an ageing population and a low birthrate), a plateau in education, rising wealth inequality, globalisation, energy/environment (global warming) and debt overhangs.
Gordon's conclusion? "A provocative 'exercise in subtraction' suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5% per year for an extended period of decades."
If the developed world's growth rate falls to that level for decades to come politicians and voters would have to change all sorts of assumptions, including how much debt can be loaded on to future voters, how to distribute income and how to invest in infrastructure.
Governments of both colours have assumed 'natural' growth of around around 3% per capita over the long run. That has cured all manner of ills. Taking on debt makes sense when income growth in future can be used to pay for it. Running a pay-as-you-go pension and healthcare system makes sense when economic growth in future can be used to 'overcome' the effects of an ageing population.
Widening disparities in wealth and income between the lower/middle 90% and the top 10% can be assumed away when there's enough of a 'tide' of future economic growth to lift everyone's boat.
Removing that assumption about 3% growth changes everything.
Politicians and voters have been saying for years now that innovation will solve the problems. 'Someone' will discover a cheap new energy source or invent a new version of the Internet to make everyone richer.
Unfortunately, that hasn't happened for 40 years, in part because investment in new science has lagged the explosive growth around the turn of the 20th century.
Do we wait and hope for a growth miracle or cut our cloth to the new normal?
112 Comments
As long as you have people thinking and working creatively then you will always have 'growth' of some kind. It just may not be as linear/ financial or as similar to the 50s to 90s growth. Do we really think that global financial disaster is going to block humans innovating, experimenting, producing, & helping their familes get a better future.
Yes, the period of 1700 to 2000 was a special period of time - of course it's interesting that this incredible time of prosperity and new discovery also paralleled the Reformation, the spread of the Bible, scientific discovery based on a Judeo-christian world-view, the prosperity of the UK, USA, France, Germany & colonial countries - all based on a values-based world-view, which also spread the Christian message of hope & redemption [notwithstanding many misuses of this belief system]. These countries & economies all assisted in the re-birth of Israel, which of course is at the centre of a troubled world & region costing trillions of $$$ to the world economy.
And the rise of the EU (exploiting the financial meltdown & no-growth phase) - and it's power base - will be seeking to nullify all these values, and turn the clock back to a supposedly 'neutral' value system - which will effectively put global power into the hands of value-less dictators and corrupt political/countries, including turning world opinion against the Jews & Israel.
So really, Recessions/No-growth/Depressions/Famine - are caused by values vacuums & not solved by clever strategy or by throwing money at it.
Well you could push that further to say that the values vacuum (well said, I like that term)is what has enabled the depletion of resources to the point our species is facing a spectacular turning. All the creativity and innovation (wishful thinking?)of the last 50 years has not arrested the decline in population growth, which could peak and turn negative at any time. The Seneca effect is clearly in action.
Mortgage-belt @ 11.03 ---- What the ? is that all about?
This is nothing to do with religion (although it does have to do with misplaced belief).
And growth is not linear. Financial isn't the problem either, who cares who holds the proxy whern the music stops? The problem is the exponential chewing-up of the planet's finite resources - it's the fossil fuels, which are nothing more than millions of years worth of accumulated solar energy, which have expedited that, they being the linchpin resource.
You will have adaption, efficiencies, and a lot else from here on, but not growth, not in the real sense.
The last part of your ramble sounds suspiciously like a deflection.......
MB@6.00 - that's either disingenuous, or....no, nobody can be that stupid. Must be disingenuous.
To attempt to link a rate of growth so far back down the exponential curve, to what? Today's growth and prosperity?
Spare me. Keep it for talkback radio, something about that level. Doesn't work here.
So the Roman Empire & Greek civilisation etc didn't exist either. All through history there has been growth & prosperity at various times.
Of course the Green Hell proponents hold to a post-modern revisionist view of history - only the last 50 years count for analysis. Previous milleniums were pre-human!
Same comment, I'm afraid.
I use both - the Romans in particular, as examples of the dumb experiment we're running globally.
For the first time ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
"Thomas Homer-Dixon [5] demonstrates that a falling EROEI in the Later Roman Empire was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Western Empire in the fifth century CE. In "The Upside of Down" he suggests that EROEI analysis provides a basis for the analysis of the rise and fall of civilisations. Looking at the maximum extent of the Roman Empire, (60 million) and its technological base the agrarian base of Rome was about 1:12 per hectare for wheat and 1:27 for alfalfa (giving a 1:2.7 production for oxen). One can then use this to calculate the population of the Roman Empire required at its height, on the basis of about 2,500-3,000 calories per day per person. It comes out roughly equal to the area of food production at its height. But ecological damage (deforestation, soil fertility loss particularly in southern Spain, southern Italy, Sicily and especially north Africa) saw a collapse in the system beginning in the 2nd century, as EROEI began to fall. It bottomed in 1084 when Rome's population, which had peaked under Trajan at 1.5 million, was only 15,000. Evidence also fits the cycle of Mayan and Cambodian collapse too. Joseph Tainter[6] suggests that diminishing returns of the EROEI is a chief cause of the collapse of complex societies. Falling EROEI due to depletion of non-renewable resources also poses a difficult challenge for industrial economies."
On the contrary peace and prosperity has everything to do with our values and our world view. The best political and financial system in the world will come to nothing if the population is morally rudderless and getting what you can for yourself is the only "good".
Many people who only put their faith in scientific theory will frequently think deep down "Ohh well I will be long dead by then". Or their ability to care ends with ensuring their family are looked after. Being able to care beyond ones family and even beyond our own community is the key to successful society and this relies on a belief system.
The Christian heritage most of the developed world received has instilled a sense of value and care for all people which has benefitted our society greatly.
Pure evolutionary thinking tends to move us toward survival of the fittest thinking and a focus on our race over others.
A love and focus on nature can help but I have known many with this philosophy to end up disliking people and putting much more care toward animals.
Our value system has a huge impact on peace and prosperity don't underestimate it.
I'm not sure I understand your point, isn't the theory that each race is a genetic branch on the evolutionary tree fighting for survival. Of course you can have other beliefs in addition to evolution that help you see beyond this but at its core that's what it is. Unchecked it can lead to "ethnic cleansing" type philosophies such as that which motivated Hitler in his pursuit of a dominant Aryan race.
Tell me where you observe evolution occuring in modern humans. Are you are suggesting there is no evidence of evolution occuring in any living human population group. The layman evolutionist (wrongly I agree) believes different breeds of farm animals are evidence of evolution occuring and they see differnt ethnic groups as the equivalent in humans. You and I know this is just nature or poeple selecting from genese that already exist in the gene pool and not evolution. On the more extreme side you also have those who use this reasoning to justify ethnic cleansing.
You're talking complete balls.
As long as there are breeding populations of anything, evolution via natural selection and genetic drift is occurring. Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of human genetics and evolution knows that genetically human populations are so alike that race hardly exists at that level. If you're going to get into this, it would be advisable to learn something about it rather than flailing around in ignorance.
And as for your position that evolution leads to wanting to exterminate the inferior, that's complete hogwash too. Religion and political ideology have that one sewn up. After all, history would indicate that it's a short step from believing that if somebody is damned and going to hell, then their life on earth is worth nothing either. Refer to the Dutch colonising the Indies and Spice Islands in the 17th century, or the Spanish colonising the Americas, or the 18th and 19th century slave trade. Good Christians all.
Evolution requires new genetic material being created to form new genes and new functions. The sort that turns bacteria into humans with the multitude of species in between. As long as nature or farmers are picking and choosing preferred genes among those that already exist in various sheep populations of the world there is no evolution occurring. I'm always astounded how even educated evolutionists make this basic error, selecting genes from an existing gene pool is not evolution, creating new genes and new functions is evolution.
I agree about the human population being so alike which is why I made it clear this a perception among the layman not the reality. Interestingly even Neanderthal was no different to us genetically than the small human to human variation that already exists. So where is your evolution? can you point to a single observable new function being formed or new gene that caused it?
Julz - presumably your comment is based on some faith in some kind of omnipotent deity.
Nobody denies anything unless they have a pre-held belief that they don't want to shake.
You argument was lost 100 years ago, the current bunch are the limits-to-growth deniers, and the Climate Change deniers - belief-based in exact parallel to the religious folk of yore.
I find it interesting, this cranial failure th accept reality. Surely such a gifetd designer wouldn;t have made such a basic mistake?
Everybody has a faith, you may put yours in theories like the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution to try and explain the existence of the universe, first life and humans rather than God but it all requires faith.
I like to think we can debate the science without being slaves to our pre-held beliefs, there are atheists you reject evolution and Christians who embrace Evolution but on the whole I agree most people spend their life defending their beliefs rather than openly seeking the truth. I have spent most of my life as a evolutionist until I became disillusioned with the theory during my biochemistry master’s degree.
If I had been around during Darwin’s time I would have embraced evolution. As Darwin pointed out the genetic sciences and fossil discoveries that followed would determine the fate of his theory. What he didn't predict was that the mindset of removing a Creator from all scientific theory would become so entrenched that his theory would stick in spite of the evidence. If Darwin was alive today and could see the lack of support modern advances in genetics and fossils have provided to his theory he would have abandoned it.
No there is a huge difference, the former is maths and physics, that isnt a faith as it can be proven as a fact. God is faith thing as it cannot be proven, it isnt factual and never will be. One is science one is spiritual. They dont compare or compete in a rational mind and they should not be.
regards
So putting your faith in an unknown force that created the universe or an unknown life form that materialised by chance is math’s and physics yet belief in a being who was capable of creation is spiritual faith.
If I stumble upon a carving and postulate a sculptor who created it am I being spiritual and unscientific? Science has it limits, for example you can’t demonstrate scientifically my $1,000 loan to the bank however that doesn’t make it any less real.
The former has a mathematical basis, the latter does not. eg Einstein didnt write about relativity til 1905 (I think it was) the sun shone before and after yet after we had in effect modern physics.
In terms of your bank loan that isnt a law of maths or physics, that is a law of convention, totally different.
I suggest you have a look at debt jubilee's, in which debt/loans are cancelled....you cant do that with physics.
regards
It's only after a physicist like Einstein proves such a theory that we know it had a mathematical basis. There were many other theories like the Earth beng flat that fell away.
I can put my faith in there being such a discovery that proves the existance of a heavenly dimension just as easily as putting my faith in a discovery that demonstrates the origins of a Big Bang. They are both faith positions, it will only be after the event that we will know which had a mathematical basis and which was just plain false.
GDP growth might well be on the wane for many reasons, but should we abandon the objective of capability growth?
"Unfortunately, that hasn't happened for 40 years, in part because investment in new science has lagged the explosive growth around the turn of the 20th century."
What do this government do with the private sector R&D tax credit?
Les
Les - actually, the comment is wrong.
Typically, the big leaps in knowledge come first, and easiest. The dregs take more and more effort for less and less return. Darwin changed the way we see the world; nowadays some folk spend a lifetime specialising in studying the feeding habits of a single species. There was a lot of development between the Wright Bros and the DC3 - but not a lot since. Same with a Curved-Dash Olds of 1902, vs the twin overhead cam Peugeot of 1913. Not so much since. So it goes.
The problem is actually targeting the R@D at this point; alternatives to fossil-fuel energy have to be top priority, and anything relying on them, bottom.
Don't think the Pollies get that.
Yet.
What do this government do with the private sector R&D tax credit?
Exactly what the government should have done - got rid of it. The R&D tax credit allowed big consultancy firms to charge big fees to lodge the credit application.
Targeted R&D grants are the way to go, better bang for your buck.
The market should pick winners, not officials. As for the involvement of consultants, the same is true of grants and for smaller firms this then becomes more of an issue. Larger firms can more readily afford consultants or have capable staff who can also present a nicely crafted grant application. Rather than sling the baby with the bathwater, NACT should have simplified the process so consultants were not required, particularly as this would have assisted smaller (acorn) firms and led to broader engagement in R&D investment across the differentiated product (hi-value add) sectors. Although some welcome rigour may have been forced on some firms, with possibly conflicted offcials advising on the process and implementation, the scope for extra and unnecessary complication was a likely outcome. The targeting arguement ignores the equity arguement that the many, and competitors, end up supporting a favoured few. Australia can get an R&D tax credit system to work, why can't we? Or maybe 'we' didn't really want it to work, as there'd be less scope for picking ...... the favoured few.
Very well said , Les . The decision on which companies survive , thrive or die , should be left to the consumers of their products or sevices .
...... governments have an appalling track record of thinking " we know best " , or of picking " winners " , and unbalancing markets ( think of the USA housing market ! ) .....
Governments role is to enact clear and simple regulation ( R&D , depreciation allowances , pollution controls , etc ) , to create an even playing field for everyone to operate in , and then to stand back out of the way , and as a passive observer , moniter the results .....
..... if we want a recent example of a government targeted industry which ended badly for all concerned , have a looksie at the Australian solar panel industry , and the complete pig's breakfast that the Rudd-Gillard governments made of it ...... those Rudds ..... tisk tisk !
I am so sick of this cliché being trotted out – yes the government does need to pick winners... Companies and the “market” do not have the collective clout or long term strategic thinking capacity to get meaningful things done - take the US example:
In helping to transform the U.S. economy from a rural backwater into an industrial civilization that has provided material abundance and a quality of life few would willingly give up, the federal government has picked winners in ordering the country's fiscal and monetary affairs, developing infrastructure, and supporting high-risk technology research.
When Alexander Hamilton persuaded Congress to adopt a plan for the federal government to assume the states' Revolutionary War debts and stabilize the young country's finances, he was picking winners.
When Henry Clay argued successfully for his "American System" to pay for roads and canals that would connect farmers with markets, he was picking winners.
Same when Abraham Lincoln signed legislation distributing land to farmers, establishing land-grant colleges, and authorizing the Transcontinental Railroad.
And when Theodore Roosevelt built the Panama Canal. And when Dwight Eisenhower pushed through the Interstate Highway System. And when John F. Kennedy decided the U.S. was ready to take on a mammoth, improbable project to put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth.
In the 20th century, federal R&D supported medical breakthroughs, civilian nuclear energy, gas turbines, and the Internet - Winners were picked.
GBH says.
(a) The decision on which companies survive , thrive or die , should be left to the consumers of their products or sevices, and (b) Look at the Australian solar panel industry , and the complete pig's breakfast that the Rudd-Gillard governments made of it
Funny you should say that and pick the solar panel industry as an example.
The big polluters, and big oil, and big coal (power generators) have been on the receiving end of $10 billion in annual subsidies for decades, yet prices kept going up and up and up, and the pigs still keep holding their hands out for the $10 billion in subsidies every year. When the solar initiative came along, consumers took to solar panels with their ears pinned back. 25% of all households now have solar panels resulting in network supplied power consumption going down right across the country for the first time ever. And who screamed. Who screamed in the ears of government the loudest. The BIG boys. They had a nice piggy bank filled with all those subsidies and the carpet-baggers applied that huge bank-balance of loot to lobby the government to stop encouraging and enabling consumers to bypass their guaranteed income. One of the largest generators has just moth-balled one of their coal powered generating plants, and two of the others have cancelled planned development of new plants.
Yes, the consumers spoke, but the protected companies squealed. Government buckled at the knees.
Gordon's paper is a good reminder of real economics as the provison and consumption of goods and services; and not just financial gymnastics.
A lesson overall is that much growth per capita will be in getting more of the 99% up to a level comparable to the 1% (disregarding for a moment PDK's likely response that there isn't enough planet to let that happen). The 1% cannot really eat any more, already have more or less all the toys they can likely use, and the new toys that are likely to be invented will have marginal utility. A key hopeful invention to placate PDK to some extent, is more efficient and non carbon generating energy, but that will only replace the effect of fossil fuels. Without that, we presumably start to go backwards in lifestyle.
So I'm somewhat hopeful that in the end, even the rabid Republicans among the 1%, will recognise that they need a solution that works for the 99%, or there will not be any growth, and their investments in productive wealth (shares and property primarily) will decline in value.
For New Zealand, a key seems to be to ensure we keep or grow our market share of production, as before long our consumption will not be able to keep outpacing production. Hence the currency debates going on; along with focus on education, and supportive policy frameworks addressing Gordon's 6 points. And, apart from the ethical benefits of better income equality, much per capita growth in consumption (and production) will have to come from the 99%, as the top 1% here are also nearish to peak consumption it seems to me.
Stephen L - stop thinking in terms of the fiscal top !% .
The top % who are the problem, are the two billion who live at the level you and I do. There ain't enough planet to even support them doing that, let alone the few billion wannabe's waiting in the wings.
The top 1% are no more the problem, than Government spending is. The overshoot is bigger than both scapegoats, and the mentioning of either is blameshift/denial. The Left is a silly as the Right.....
I think that's an oversimplification, the wealth held by the top 1% could very easily ensure the basic needs are met for everyone. No one is saying everyone should join the middle classes of the developed nations and drive cars, they are saying however that everyone could and should have basic health care, shelter, food etc.
Once peoples basic needs are the met the insurance policy of having large families is no longer needed.
To be human is to not know the future. To know the future is a curse. Ask anyone diagnosed with terminal cancer. To be human is to hope. Hope allows us to do things, to create, to try.
For us right now, let a 100,000 experiments in hope, maybe to loose, but definitely to try, to create and often to fail. Free competitive markets mean free people, people free to try.
Inequality is not good for free markets and competitions, unequal places do not innovate.
Stop looking to those seeking 'efficiency'- what they mean really is reduced competition and more money for them.
Stop rent seekers that destroy hope. Those with their hands out demanding that the young people of New Zealand should pay for them to do nothing. I am taklking of course not about dole bludgers and solo mums but about rent seekers who do not work but demand money from those who do - eg power companies, landloards, councils, anyone who demands more than the true cost of production and a 'normal' profit. You find them where ever there is a monopoly of or near monopoly.. Businesses hate competition, competition is hard, brutal and does not make as much money.
Imagine if at the end of the month you got a 15-20 page bill for your use of the roads of New Zealand, and that if you knew in advance how far you would travel you would be charged a bit less, or if you visited family and friends the cost would be different, or if you had 2 people or more in car etc etc then you would have to work out if the charges were really fair or not. You could even get your bill from 3-4 bill providers so that there was 'competition'. Would you put up with it - no - but we put up with it for something so much easier to provide- phone and internet. New Zealand will succeed when we let 1000s of expeiments in hope loose to try. Let free markets and competition give things a go, and if free markets and competition are not possible then stop rent seekers from sucking us dry.
Young New Zealanders are not really fleeing to Oz for the weather or for jobs or even for houses, they are fleeing because they have hope, hope that they can get a better job, a house a family a future. To our shame they would rather leave New Zealand to find hope because they know they cannot find it here.
Just imagine if we didn't care about GDP growth , Bernard .... 'cos GDP growth seems to be a mere political football for politicians to scrap over , and a yardstick for the treasury to hang their ludicrous forecasts on ......
....... the average person in the deveolped world already has a totally awesome living standard ...... anything more than we currently have is a bonus , not a necessity ...
And incase you missed it Bernard , there have been a communications ( cell phones for everyone ) and an internet revolution in the last 40 years ... were you asleep , or do you not rate these amongst mankinds great innovations ?
.... the next great leaps forward are already being announced in medicine and in energy ... but those stories are not aired here . Did'yer miss Jaephil Cho's research paper on super-fast re-charging of electric car batteries , Bernard ? ......or the announcement of a bionic eye for blind people ..... or the successful rejuvenation of spinal stem cells in lab experiments .....? .. or the production of fresh new tissue from mature human cells ? ....
Gosh Bernard , you do seem to miss alot of what is happening around you ..... please pay more attention in class , boy !
If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.
Overpopulation, per-head consumption of depletable resources, and failure to mitigate, are the problem(s) here.
Medical science keeps people alive, so it can be argued that all medical activity is a move in the direction of overpopulation. No matter how trick, it's compounding the problem.
Batteries have been being charged for over a century, and swap-a-battery cars operated 100 years ago in Chicago. The speed of charge is not the issue. There is a tendency to lose more energy via heat (the usual final energy atrophy) the more you speed up the passage of electrons through any given conductor, but the bigger problem is where the electricity comes from in the first place.
50% fossil fuels, globally. 40+% coal. We will go solar, no question, but whether the infrastructure can be built and maintained, using solar (Transpower servicing the pylons using battery-powered 4x4's?) to do it, is the question. Not how fast you can charge batteries.
Those who attempt that kind of mis-argument, are either too stupid to see their errors, or have a vested interest in attemping to fool the foolable.
Transpower may have to use these.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/13/electric-motorcycles-from-brammo-and…
Robby217 - sorry, but that suggests you don't think things through.
Unless the whole race voluntarily (or by decree) limitsw it's numbers, the voluntary demise of an individual doesn't change the game.
Many of my crowd, chose not to have children at all; a valid response to the coming problem. But - until you stop South Auckland producing 8-child families, their efforts (or lack of!) will be in vain.
Save the planet? Wrong assumption. The planet will go on, as it always has. 99.999% of all species even inhabiting the planet, are extinct, I'd just have thought that we might have had a chance - given our level of cognisance and knowledge - of avoiding our own demise.
pdk you take things too literally sometimes. Of course the planet will still go on even if everything is destroyed
But its likely the earth will be consumed by the Sun one day, once it becomes a red dwarf, so hope you've made the required preparations.
Whats this about reducing numbers by decree, hope you don't ever get near the reigns of power.!
The paradox for you is the one thing that does demonstrably bring the birth-rate down is pursuit of consumption goods by working long hours, paying excessive mortgage interest to a bank etc.
Perhaps it's you rabid malthusians breeding like rabbits up in the hinterland we should worry about? And perhaps 'bits of the planet' are not so bad after all ...
The way of thinking needs to change Gummy..
Another link for illusionary people, who think economic growth is controllable.
The so-called Blood Vessel Battery that charges in a second (any any fast charging battery for that matter) are interesting, especially for small appliances like phones, PDAs, shavers. How well do they scale up though to larger sizes? I'm talking not about the technology itself, but the source of the energy.
Charging your phone (let's say an 8Wh battery) takes 480W for a minute. That's something you can get from a regular wall socket. To charge it in one second requires 29kW for a second. That's a lot of power to deal with so domestically the one minute charge makes more sense.
Say you have a 20kWh electric car. Charging in an hour you will need 20kW or a 90A domestic circuit. Hmm, I think our switchboard is rated for 60A max. Hmm. So maybe you can charge your car in an hour. To charge in 1 minute, you need to find 1.2MW! Maybe re-fueling stations will be adjacent to power sub-stations!
The problem is, if everyone had electric cars the electricity grid wouldn't be able to keep up. I worked it out one day for the US - by my calculations (may be wrong of course) would require electricity usage to increase by 10-15%, which their grid cannot handle; it's already going into disrepair!
I know you get it, but many folk equate batteries with being a SOURCE of energy and not a STORE of energy. To charge a battery the energy has to be sourced from somewhere.
"The book, "HOMO BRITANNICUS" tells the epic history of life in Britain, from humanity's very first footsteps to the present day. It describes times when Britain was so tropical that human lived alongside hippos and sabre tooth tiger, times so cold we shared this land with reindeer and mammoth, and times colder still when we were forced to flee altogether" (Ice 1 K thick covered Britain).
The first evidence of Human Occupation of Britain dates back to 700,000 years ago. Since then our Briish ancestors have been completely wiped out 6 times. Modern humans arrived just 12,000 years ago.
It is if we took one sunny afternoon in summer in Dunedin and assumed that this was the "norm". Nighttime was inconceivale! Southerly storms were inconceivable. Only sunny
Uncontroled growth is called "CANCER". the big C. It is awful. It is not wonderful! You only survive if the growth is cut out and then stopped!!!!!! Anybody who wished for cancer for themselves, their families or their community should be shunned, or confined..
We, and those who follow us, could lead happy, stable, healthy sucessive lives in a zero growth NZ. We couldn't afford to pay the head of TVNZ $1,000,000 pa, but maybe thats not a bad thing?
Good on you Bernard!
While we may put different weightings on the likely reasons for growth to end (I come from a physics/chemistry field so like PDK and co. ultimately view net energy inputs as the most important driver.), I'm pleased someone has finally had the courage to confront this issue in the MSM.
Well done for putting this out there!
The destruction of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ
When Western countries fail to deal with economic growth - how to you think China’s/ India’s consumers are dealing with it - sustainably ??
Will we ever understand ?????????????????????????????
Think about - the number of people becoming consumer's - staggering !!!
Most economic growth occurs in China/ India - in hard working countries.
List of GROWTH items in my world:
Rates bill +350 pa
Gas delivery +90 pa
My productivity - upskilled quals & effectiveness + 3000 pa
Trees + 10cm incl photosynthesis etc
VEGES - all grown (unaware of zero growth restrictions)
3 kids - all have productive jobs, world benefits
Insurance bill - grown by 20%
Customers - grown by 8%
Wifes job - grown by 10 hours per week
Debt reduction - grown by 4%
Knowledge & skills - grown
As long as there,s life, you can have growth.
Read bios of immigrants who arrive with nothing & build prosperity
MortgageB - same comment as above; if you ask the wrong question, you get shyte.
Rates? Fossil-fuelled infrastructure. Fossil-sourced plastics, bitumen......
Gas (and deliv of) fossil fuel(s)>
productivity is a mix of efficiencies and lowered income per output, I could explain the link but I expect I'd lose you....
Trees - actually, a mature forest is a zero-sum game; yes, you can plant from the here and now, but until everyone else stops un-planting (you buy NZ milk, you're contributing to more forest depletion via clearance for palm, than anything you grow at home).
Vegies - actually, if you remove them for eating, you must replace soil nutrient. Usually courtesy of fossil fuels, and in the case of BigAg, made from them directly.
Kids? depends on what you call productive. I suspect we are a ways apart on that....
Insurance will continue to escalate relatively - the cost of energy (fossil fuels needed for every concrete truck, every bit of plastic, every digger, every new window delivered) guarantees this.
Customers - irrelevant without qualification (at the expense of competitors? that would make it just a zero-sum change, energy-wise.
Wife is spending 10% more? Cumulatively, that's a compounding of the problem.
Debt reduction? Good on you; it's not a perfect measure (we fail to properly value natural capital, including depletion and pollution) but better than none. Of course, without usury, you'd have been debt-free years ago.....
Knowledge and skills? Ditto. We're going to need all we can get, the downside is going to be very different.
Migrants? No, almost all 'prosperity' can be directly linked to the expenditure of increasing amounts of energy, doing things to things. That 'prosperity' can be roughly translated as: the ability to 'buy' bits of the planet. None of which are produced without the expenditure of energy, most of it fossil (and therefore finite).
Ask the right question. I think the disconnect is that, for a few generations, we viewed 'money' as a guarantee that it could be swapped for things tangible. The tangible bit was always going to peak, the question is what will that do to all the 'expectation'?
PDK - enough of this trotting out the bullsheet doozy line about palm kernel (you buy NZ milk, you're contributing to more forest depletion via clearance for palm)
Palm kernel used in NZ is a WASTE product which will be spread on the ground where it comes from if not bought by someone...NOT buying it will not stop the logging of Indonesian forests, and will not save orangutans. The people choosing to grow palm kernel are choosing to use modern cultivation techniques and modern monocultures copied from our "first world economies" (first because we destroyed it all first?).
And that's their prerogative...the wisdom of that given our first world hind-sight is debatable sure...
Pikowai - bollocks to the first bit.
If kernel is sold, and removed from the site (resulting in nutrient depletion, as you will well know), then it's not a 'waste product'.
The rest you have a valid argument - we are exporting our first-world environmental demand, to places with slacker controls. Unfortunately, that might have worked in a colonial era, but we are now in a global one.
West-Coast coal gets burnt in China, our kids wear the consequences. Rainforest gets cleared in Brazil (where is Morgan's farming operation, again?) amd we wear the consequences. So it went. So it can't go on.
Breaking News NZ Government stunts Chinese Growth.
The explicit link between religion and demographics is well made by David P Goldman ("Spengler" over at Asia Times and now PajamasMedia) in How Civilisations Die.
So the question of values and beliefs has a solid empirical and statistical basis in terms of views of the future, because it allows an answer to the question of 'why bother reproducing?', which is of course the basis for Growth (or Stasis, or Decline) - demographics is Destiny.
Not the most popular stance, as it blows off the atheists, the nihilists, the Left, the fundmentalists, the consumerista and the ideologues. Which accounts for most of the common taters 'round 'ere, eh?
Oh, except for Gummy Bear!
I acknowledge PDKsGeo limits point of view. But not what I want to discuss here.
But looking at the growth issue in a more limited way, would the citizens of New Zealand benefit from increases in things economic that are not growth.
It seems to me that even with no growth in GDP individual would be much better off by increasing ownership. ( no foreign debt reliance). Or the economic benefits of builidng houses that would last 500 years, that had extremely low lifetime cost of ownership.
What about a static GDP and reduced hours of work. What about an static GDP and increased job security. (both overall for the whole populaton.
To last 500 years the house would have to be incredibly robust, unrealistically so in terms of initial build cost I'd suggest. But you are right that TCO (total cost of ownership) is the most important factor. That of course is difficult to judge, if you go back to the 50s, 60s and 70s no one really considered the price of energy significant, yet today it clearly is so insulation was optional....now its essential. So what will the future change?
Just about everyone Ive read and listened to suggests that actually rather than last 500 years aim for something a lot shorter, maybe even only 60 years....
For me earthship.org is about the most fasinating way of house building ive seen, well worth the hours reading and watching what is there IMHO. I'd love to own a house like that...
regards
I put a similar point to one of my lecturers when he was talking about how buildings change over time. The get modified or added to as different users or owners take possession over time.
My question was: "can you design a building so well that the fit for purpose means it remains in its original format for hundreds or even thousands of years?" The answer is yes but the examples are few.
What I believe is completely possible is to design into a structure the potential to modify. Probably the biggest issue for this is the services. 50 years is the current design standard but I don't believe this is sufficient when new builds are taking 500,000 Kw/hrs to build.
50 years really is very short. Look to Europe for how long building can last. People in places like Amsterdam live in houses that can be a few hundred years old. Renovated on the inside, the structure is mainly intact. Still, they're far from ideal for what I would call contemporary living.
The thing is the TCO, total cost of ownership. The economics suggest that building and keeping a house going for say 100 years is more expensive than building a house for 50 years, knocking its remains down, recycling and building a (mostly) new one on the same site to last 50 years.
And yes you get the advantage that the second house can be built to a more modern use. In terms of "contempory living" older houses tended to be small as thay are cheaper to own and heat...comparing a house of similar age and construcation of course....The changes we will see over the coming decade or 2 will greatly curtail expansive houses I am sure....not unless we radically change their design and even then...
regards
Indeed, one thing that seems irrifutable is we will have less energy and 2 or 4 car families with a garage to suit seems an aboration. Right now of course our Govn is aiming to build roads to accomodate that, when in fact it will be more like only the upper middle and richer will have a prius. So within 20 years there maybe as few as a 100,000 cars on the roads in NZ. Then the Q to be asked is how can you justify roads paid for by all for that few cars only the well off use...iterations of impacts seem to go on and on...
regards
Most non-Catholic controlled countries , which have a well educated population , and low infant mortality , reach a population plateau quite naturally .....
..... with no interference by the state , no need for the " passion-police " , or sleazy bedroom inspectors whispering " oi , girlie , wanna suck a gummibar ? ..... come over here , sweetie ... "
It is not as simple Gummy - it has a good reason, when Catholics hope on each other – almost fourth nightly - nightly. Considering natural disasters, diseases, epidemics, wars etc and other threats to human kind, millions could go in just a few minutes – so constant human production is wise and important.
Social pressure I suspect will do it "naturally."..
a) large families will be seen as anti-social, anti-planet and wasteful.
b) In the developed world, when it dawns on the proles just what the future will be like for their kids (post peak oil, very tough) I wouldnt be surprised if many ppl choose not to have children.
c) Winz will all but disappear, no DPB....we wont have the energy and money to allow/support lots of non-workers.
d) In the developing world the over-population problem will be acute....that leaves starvation as the way to control numbers...."bedroom inspections" might be a more humane alternative. We wont chose the latter though...between the namby pamby liberals and other kooks we'll default to the former.
regards
Regarding a) Check out life in places where population growth is still high, like India. There large families are something to aspire to, despite the living conditions. Maybe large families will be seen as anti-social in the west but when the majority of people live elsewhere it's kind of moot.
b+c) good reasons to have lots of kids in order that a few might make it. Sad but true.
The way I see it playing out is rather than people reducing the number of children they have, death rates will increase. Famine, disease, pandemic, social unrest and war. You get population peak, followed by decline, and nobody has to do ANYTHING. Humans are good at that.
War will be a good way to focus a nation's interests, and would additionally explain to many why their quality of life is so poor without having to try and explain cerebral ideas such as peak everything or exponential functions to the masses. Being at war, you can blame the other side to the one you're on for everything bad that's happening.
Some of india, I think one of the most populated (southern?) provinces has 1 one child outlook, it was on youtube or topdocumentarychannel I think) . They of course value baby girls as much as boys and sometimes have a second or third just to have a girl....the opposite to china....so purely a cultural thing.
Yes I think death rates will increase significantly...the problem then becomes migration....like locusts no where maybe safe, even NZ.
regards
Sadly India doesn't value girls all that highly.
Mist - good post, good question.
Prof Ellen Moseley-Thompson visited a couple of years ago, and was asked that very question at the Otago Uni Staff Club.
She replied "That isn't the question. The question is: at what level of comfort do you want to live? You tell me that, and I'll tell you how many it can support long-term".
Smart lady.
The answer seems to be 1 billion (our level of comfort) 2 billion (subsistence). The problem is that if we trash the place in overshoot, those bets are off........
In terms of our level of comfort however like "hunger games" for that 1 billion we need a considerable amount of the developing world's low cost labour to stay here.
Really we need slaves, and we will need even more slaves as the fossil fuel output declines. In some ways that makes us almost like the nazis' just disconnected via economics and distance from the misery and suffering that needs to be elsewhere to have what we want here.
Not a good thought for a Monday.
regards
The prospects for global growth are, in practical terms, unlimited.
If the global economy set itself about making sure everyone in the world had:
- potable water
- sanitation
- adequate housing
- secure food supply
- access to health care
- access to education
there would be no problem with keeping ourselves busy for several lifetimes.
When we keep framing this only in terms of the developed world we ignore the global demand for a whole lot of stuff that we take no notice of ourselves except to whinge about how much it all costs.
Of course paying for water, sanitation, education etc does hamper our ability to upgrade our smartphones on an annual basis.
Kumbel - too many folk extant now, for that to happen.
You should have been at the Morgan talk recently - he gets it. :)
Your list cannot be had, unless a sustainable and attainable energy-source can be found. For instance, 'secure food supply': currently an average of perhaps 15 calories of fossil oil, to produce every 1 calorie of food. That doesn't continue.
I have no problem with the validity of your goals, and I'm sure we will be busier than ever - manual labour being an inevitable part of the mix we throw at displacing fossil fuels
Never said it would be easy :-) Just pointing out that, whereas we are well and truly into the era of diminishing returns in the developed world, there are massive returns possible on relatively low expenditure (maybe resource use) outside of our cosy little club.
No they are not possible... not with 7 billion, 2.5 billion yes....well maybe...the point is teh developed world has used ALL the world's easy and cheap to get resources....there simply isnt enough cheap energy and cheap resources left to even stand still.
So dont worry about the worlds developing nations ppl, many face starving to death inside the next 2 decades...
Worry about yourself and fellow NZers.
regards
you may be interested in http://www.masarang.nl/en/initiatives/index.jsp?USMID=90, an existing programme of energy and food production relying on much higher manual labour and greatly reduced (fossil) fuel inputs.
That energy source is already in the pipe line, fusion reactors
http://www.intergraph.com/assets/pressreleases/2012/10-03-2012.aspx
Im sorry but you missed mentioning you also believe the world is flat, because the only way we can have infinite growth and consumption is with inifinite resources and free energy to do it with, period.
That is mathematically, physically and obviously, silly.
If you take that the present 1.5billion of us developed ones we have only topped out population growth because we have uh "developed". From that hen you need to calculate how many planets we need to get the other 5.5billion there.
A rough calculation would be at a minimum 3 more worlds...and its way more than that I suspect...
A bit more of a logical guess is,
If you say 1.5billion is the developed level and base that on 1945 world population (2billion), that 5.5 billion would grow to about 16billion before they developed our "status". One planet can only sustain about 2billion, therefore 18billion takes 9 worlds....
regards
And I never said that the world could be a linear extension of what it is now.
Technically the economic concept of GDP growth does not require increased material consumption (although in practice it still does correlate somewhat). GDP is only a measure of the degree to which we keep ourselves busy in a measurable way. It's a crappy measure.
I'm glad you brought up the idea of other worlds. If we are to keep on growing then colonising other planets is the only way we're going to be able to do it in the long term. The universe is a big place compared to little old earth and there is much room for expansion out there.
The technical difficulties are of course huge for the human species and if it's possible for humans to achieve it would certainly take a great deal of effort. Plus energy. As it turns out space programs are taking cut backs across the board, so our only hope for continued growth is being taken less and less seriously by those in power.
... Douglas Adams (RIP) sort of had it right, except it's not the dolphins leaving the planet, but the bees ... :-)
So does every other Pollie. Italy I think said it would "ensure" it was going to grow at 5%+ per annum to get out of its mess. The only way to do that is alongside inflation, classic Govn printing to stimulate...
Of course the world has to get out of the zero bound trap first and avoid crippling deflation and Great[er] Depression territory....fat chance IMHO.
regards
A shortage of money , or of export earnings , is not NZ's problem ...unlike the performers in Barnum & Baileys Circus , we seriously lack balance ... and the clowns running NZ fail to see this ...
..... if we did manage to grow our GDP , if would be mis-allocated in the same directions as it currently is ( welfare for votes / Auckland residential housing ) .... ultimately , making our situation even more perilous ...
GBH - so right and that is where all the problems are. It's the mis-allocation that is the real problem and every time Govt or it's Agencies intervene by way of regulation or protectionism the more unsustainable the BS system becomes.
Here's a classic example of intervention and protectionism and the S^@t load of problems it has caused. A whole new (old) industry is emerging worldwide and NZ could be in a prime position. Guaranteeing food is safe for human consumption and has the right nutrient levels will become big business. Some NZ beef farmers are already supplying product to Japan with the guarantees in place.
Just as it is possible for an individual, family or community to "prep" for an uncertain future (earthquake, pandemic, economic collapse), it would be inexpensive and straightforward for NZ, as a nation and a community, to prepare.
Off the top of my head- we could install solar water heaters on every roof. We could encourage people to install solar electicity panels on their roofs and hook into the national grid. Promote small hydroelecrtic schemes.. Repalce every lightbulb in NZ (including street lights) with LED bulbs.
Make all public transport, inner city and between cities, FREE. Build bycycle paths everywhere. Start controling our borders and encourage the manufacture of necessities here.
Look at our own bodies! they are full of redundancy- two kidneys, two eyes, two testes, two overies, two lungs, two arms etc. If there is a blood blockage, usually there is spare capacity in veins and arteries to route the blood around the blockage.
If "just in time", no inefficiencies was such a great idea, surely The Creator would have built us along these lines!! But in fact, we are inefficient and built to enjoy our existence, not to ravage our environment.
We imagine that we are smarter than bacteria, but clearly we are not. Bacteria also believe in, and practice (if they get a chance) unlimited growth..It ends in a stinking mess.
A well written piece here. Some intelligent comments as well.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-12/great-chess-game
The Great Chess Game
Everyone is aware of a multitude of problems that besets our world, however the nature of these problems and why they exist is distorted by the media and by governments all over the world. Our leaders, corporate heads, military top-brass etc. all have a fairly good idea of what is really happening, they just don’t want us – the ignorant masses known as the general public to know what they know.
The multiple crises on this planet are caused by our insane mode of living – one that seems to be dominated by economics. Our way of life (unfortunately now for most of the world) depends on an ever-expanding economic system, for if it is not expanding it is contracting.
This system was all well and good while there was plenty of capacity for continued expansion, but unfortunately for all of us the limits of expansion are not far off. The ‘people in the know’ are well aware of this, although they are not going to admit to anyone outside of their ‘club’ that this is the case, at least not in any direct or honest manner.
Capitalism requires growth and markets to exploit – in the past there were always new markets and new people to exploit, which fueled growth and the resources needed to run the engine of commerce seemed inexhaustible.
At this point in time the number of new markets is shrinking, the number of people who can be easily exploited is shrinking and the availability of resources is shrinking. So that really doesn’t leave modern ‘civilised’ countries or coalitions of countries with a lot of options with regard to the continued expansion of their economies.
It strikes me that there are only really three options available:
- Expand the planet and the resources available on it by 50% or more.
- Reduce the demand on resources and reduce the number of people expecting a fair deal (i.e. not being exploited).
- Give up on a redundant system that is destined to crash and find a new economic paradigm.
Hopefully you will realize that option 1. is my little joke and that option 2. is in the realms of megalomaniac fantasy.........
Unfortunately for us, this obsessive game over resources seems to completely ignore the basic premise that we must continue to live in a world of finite resources. Instead of deciding to give up the game and concentrate on finding a way to remodel society in a way that can sustain our future; the game seems to have intensified in recent decades. I would liken this to two men on the Titanic fighting over the silver cutlery while the ship continues to sink! I wonder at what point governments will actually wake up to the fact that these ‘traditional’ solutions can no-longer work in a world where there is nowhere new left to colonize, nowhere new to discover, and precious few new resources to find.
Interesting the increasing regularlity that the ship Titanic is mentioned in the same paragraph as predictions about our future, whether it's fighting over silver on the Titanic or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. :-)
Maybe the global economy also unsinkable. :-)
Lotta words Mist, but not correct.
By your very words, capitalism requires growth. I think you're perhaps old, old enough to be 'anti-communist' propagandised.
Usury, profit, investment return, and scarcity, all require growth. Or are you saying that an equal number of folk (or at least, an equal amount of equity) can be lost, as is made by the 'winners', and that somehow this will be indefinitely tolerated?
Not that it can be maintained anyway, inputs can't sustain, so it has to reduce on average. I suggest that the current scheme can't/won't maintain in permanent recession. It'll lock up, 2008 was just the curtain-raiser.
Some years back when they were building the Haldron Collider, i was reading, on the internet, debates amongst scientists, about possible outcomes. Some were saying that it could result in earths destruction while others were refering them to debates on how it was claimed the world would be destroyed by a nuclear winter and it never happened.
At that time an article refered to a scientist, can't remember his name, who had, some years earlier, written an article suggesting that men would ultimately become so clever he would destroy himself. It was also suggested that this had already happenned many thousands of years earlier. And so on.
All this got me thinking. We live in an era of genetic modification and moving DNA between different species. For example China and Brazil have put human genes into cows and are making cows milk more like human milk. Further they grow human parts on pigs and so on. On the other side we have bird flue and other viruses jumping the species so maybe all this mixing of the genes may make it easier for more viruses to jump species and wipe us out.
Have a nice day.
A virus that kills its host is unlikely to be successful. Whan a virus first mutates or crosses a species boundary it may kill its host a lot, but variants that do not will replicate easier so natural selection occurs for both the virus and the host. Virus jumping species tend to occur when humans share living arrangements with other animals, genetic modification of mammals tends to be under labatory conditions.
Heh - mist42nz - meet John Galt. Subsistence farming is the default setting (once you find that fiddly little switch down there on the back forty). And it's where we all came from, (mostly) so there's a lot of experience if not at first hand.
Food, housing, transport, security. The only four activities needed, at base.
But hearing all the doomsters and prattlers, I'm reminded of Adam Smith's famous quote 'there is a deal of ruin in a country'.
By which he meant that there is a surprising amount of capital unrecognised, which can be put to good use by those so inclined, and thus retard the degradation/shore up some aspects of existing systems. In other words, to be carrying on with.
After all, it isn't as though we loaded up all of our stupid consumer junk onto rockets and fired them all into the Sun for recycling.
Everything is still here, in a changed and usually somewhat less useful form. But those forms are still sources of capital:
- London sold a vast pile of ash and clinker to Russia (read Peter Ackroyd, 'London - the biography')
- Dog turds ('pure') were recycled for a surprsing variety of uses
- External combustion (Stirling and Steam engines) has, I believe, been invented. Y'can run a WhisperTech genny on dried cow dung after a coupla mods...
- There's a bunch of useful fuel stored under Southland (and after all, 30% of nice Green Germany's power comes from lignite....)
- Christchurch is 'mining' its earthquake rubble - google 'Burwood Resource Recovery Park' - and has two nice Landfill Mountains full of raw materials stored in one location for the future.
Y'all get my drift. Every coin has two sides....the cup may be Half Full
Better, Waymad, but a ways to go yet.
How many folk can you supply at subsistence food level? You still figgerin on exporting or what?
And you've been told - more than once - about the energy packed by lignite. It's so much less that what we use now, that it doesn't count. Plus which, do it and we fry.
You're quite right about the consuming - that'll slow rapidly. That's what we are on about. That and the fact that it's better to adjust ahead of time, in a controlled manner, than waiting until we hit the wall. I note that none of your list, scale realistically; and that you sound somewhat less confident that hithertofore. Keep on it :)
For the record, my list is: food, water, shelter. Currently, they're all brought to you via fossil fuels, both as an energy and as a feedstock. You-all figgerin on making 100mm pressure pipe outta dung too?
Don't ferget Security, PDK, or all the rest (plus the best-looking of yer loved ones) vanishes into the woods across the back of some Wolves' horsies/camels/llamas/producer-gas-fuelled SUV's. Always easier to Take than to Make....
And don't ferget Transport: after all, the oldest mine in the world (the Great Orme coppermine on the hill at Llandudno) has ample archaelogical evidence of the extent to which faraway peoples came for the new miracle material. And That was 3,500 years ago.
As for the feedstocks for plastics etc, you probably need to get out more. A genetic engineer of my acquaintance can specify the carbon chains to be produced by zillions of enslaved bacteria, to serve as precursors for plastics, or fuel, or - just ask. Best of all, Bacteria don't belong to Unions! For a working example, see Lanzatech. And the early plastics were all Coal byproducts: I don't see Peak Coal anytime soon.
As for frying, best tell the Daily Mail, because it apparently hasn't been detectable for 16 years now....
Plus, a re-dive into History: Greek and Roman civilisations both declined because (gasp) they were so busy enjoying themselves, they forgot to Reproduce! Demographics wins again! Much the same as will happen to Japan, Russia, Italy, this century. All of whom have halving-every-generation stats: rates so far under the 2.1 kids/female that they are Doomed, Doomed! David P Goldman (Spengler) is quite good on this point, as is Victor Davis Hanson, and I wouldn't argue with either of those polymaths.
Glass half full....
Exactly, we need to have bigger families - & grow!
Growth is everywhere - the whole planet is growing stuff. We need more people - another 2 billion would kick-start economies everywhere.
Get out of the house, take a trip in a plane on a sunny day - then look down..... what do you see? Empty spaces! Enough for many many Large families.
All these selfish childless yuppies & hippies - causing doomster economic retrenchment. And careful families having neat & tidy 2 kids. 2! That's not a family - that;s a Simpsons Suburban Unit.
Chuckle.
Adapt or die, Mortgage Belt.
If you were serious, I'd ask you 'What then'? (after your next 'growth'). You wouldn't have any answer but 'more'. Which is why folk who bleat like that have to be disregarded.
At some stage you have to be wrong, and as you're obviously incapable of - or unwilling to undertake - working out which, so we others will do the ascertaining, by default.
What bank do you tout for?
Waymad - I'm happy to defend, just don't happen to be pre-emptive.
Transport will be curtailed, which will dovetail less happening. Big shipping will stay if society hangs together, too efficient. Flying will reduce to irrelevant.
I'm watching the attempts to use natural processes, but folk who blindly believe (or who spend much time in their own wee world, mentally magnifying it's import) forget the scaling-up required, and that even bacteria still need physical feedstock, displacing something else which is happening now.
Peak Coal? You don't get the speed at which 'doubling times' happen, do you? Brownlee made the same mistake re Southland lignite. My current guess (watching China, it may extend) is somewhere around 2035. Not far away......
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8064
Note they predict earlier: 2027. My diffo is that I note (as with oil and the so-called GFC) that activity declines in staggers at or near peak, so the date is hard to define, and probably irrelevant except as a guideline.
The Romans didn't 'forget' to reproduce. Much of the male stock was out defending supply-lines, lead piping probably didn't help, and :
You dont look at all do you, 2011, maybe 2012, 95% probable within 5 years.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-13/peak-coal-year
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100908-energy-peak-coal/
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/29/29greenwire-study-worlds-peak-c…
again and again I think you cant see beyond very short term.
In terms of take rather than make, yes and no....short term yes. If you look at wild animals for instance a single injury to a hunter can be its death. So longer term assuming you are in a community then attrition becomes the issue / problem. For instance injure a maker and their community should offer support while recovery takes place, the taker on the other hand. Sure return to a good looking loved one who was previously taken with your injury and do you think vengence wouldnt happen? or posse, wild west style?
Feedstock, sure there is a bio-plastic sambsung? mobile phone.
The problem is the cost to produce that "plastic" is no longer economic on at least 2 counts,
1) The bio-plastic itself is way more costly.
2) The buyers ability to pay that price in the future is in question.
Then there is how complex a society we can support with less cheap energy might take us back to the equiv of the 1960s.....such high tech might be beyond us.
Peak coal in the UK was 1913 and I dont think they have any mines left (might have one in yorkshire?).....Peak coal in the US is likely to be not more than 80 years away at current use.
NB In NZ, well lignite is awful quality, yes we have a lot of that, but like I said its awfully in-efficient feedstock....you dont use that until you are scraping the bottom of the barrel....that should tell you just where we are at with "peak coal"
regards
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.