Limits to Growth

[Franconicus]

I wonder if anyone remembers the Meadows study "Limits of Growth", ordered by the Club of Rome in the 70ties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth

The book says that in a finite world economic growth cannot be infinite. They simulated several scenarios and said that there would be a phase were production and population would go on growing but then there would be a breakdown. They suggested to limit economic and population growth and get a constant economy.

They updated this in 1992 and added the limitation of polution.

Everytime I hear about the economic growth in China (and India ...) this book comes into my mind.

What do you think about it?

[thrashaholic]

In my eyes, it won't end up being a problem because resources are never really 'used up', they're only changed and with enough energy can be changed back again (recycling etc.), so the only constraint to growth, as it has been throughout history, is the amount of energy we can produce.

As resources are used up and become more expensive (supply curve shifting inwards with fixed demand curve), people will be more inclined to explore new ways of extracting that resource that may have been unprofitable before, but now aren't (they're 'on the margin'); for example: oil exploration in Alaska didn't begin until the technology and price were such that it was profitable to do so, likewise there are vast untapped oil reserves in harder to reach places that haven't been exploited because the cost of doing so would be greater than the reveue generated (they are 'beyond/below the margin'). Consequently, it is conceivable, in fact it is almost assured, that when prices and technology rise to a state where it would be profitable to extract carbon from the atmosphere/trees/other plantlife and turn in into oil someone will do it. The same applies for other resources, when it becomes profitable to recycle them, people will.

EDIT: Some will now no doubt be saying that "this isn't growth!", but the the growth would come from the industries doing the recycling and the energy extraction industries (probably mostly nuclear, solar, wind etc.), plus the growth in service and financial industries for the increasing population.

[Hepcat]

In my eyes, it won't end up being a problem because resources are never really 'used up', they're only changed and with enough energy can be changed back again (recycling etc.), so the only constraint to growth, as it has been throughout history, is the amount of energy we can produce.

As resources are used up and become more expensive (supply curve shifting inwards with fixed demand curve), people will be more inclined to explore new ways of extracting that resource that may have been unprofitable before, but now aren't (they're 'on the margin'); for example: oil exploration in Alaska didn't begin until the technology and price were such that it was profitable to do so, likewise there are vast untapped oil reserves in harder to reach places that haven't been exploited because the cost of doing so would be greater than the reveue generated (they are 'beyond/below the margin'). Consequently, it is conceivable, in fact it is almost assured, that when prices and technology rise to a state where it would be profitable to extract carbon from the atmosphere/trees/other plantlife and turn in into oil someone will do it. The same applies for other resources, when it becomes profitable to recycle them, people will.

EDIT: Some will now no doubt be saying that "this isn't growth!", but the the growth would come from the industries doing the recycling and the energy extraction industries (probably mostly nuclear, solar, wind etc.), plus the growth in service and financial industries for the increasing population.

Yes, they are looking into extracting oil from around New Zealand now. The only thing stopping that will be the Green Party.

[rory_20_uk]

The amount of potential energy that falls on the earth from the sun is immense. The amount that is used effectively is miniscule. OK, so harnessing it all is no easy thing, but it does mean that the potential upper boundry is very high indeed. Then of course further energy could be harvested in space.

Population density is growing. but then if the ppulation density of all the world were that of Manhatten we'd all fit into an area about the size of Texas.

The potential resources in the sea that are seemingly ignored as looking at rocks a long way away is oh so much more interesting is another area where I feel money should be spent. From a source of energy, to food to (stretching things a bit) habitation there is a lot of potential.

One day things will reach a point where growth is not possible, but as time passes the norms will shift which will in turn allow more unexpected growth to occur.

[Keba]

Energy is unlikely to become a problem. I would advise a quick web-search for something called a Tokamak reactor ... you'll see. It has achieved the proper levels and mixtures for commercially applicable fusion, and with the rising prices of natural energents, it is becoming mighty attractive.

Sure it's expensive to build, but it costs less, apart from some deuterium and tritium it doesn't need any other energents ... and hydogen is, after stupidity, the most common substance in the universe.

Hm, I might have those two mixed up, but it's difficult to know which there is more of, yet.

[Duke Malcolm]

Energy is unlikely to become a problem. I would advise a quick web-search for something called a Tokamak reactor ... you'll see. It has achieved the proper levels and mixtures for commercially applicable fusion, and with the rising prices of natural energents, it is becoming mighty attractive.

I was of the impression the current reactors could not produce enough energy to sustain themselves.