Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but we are strictly a secular site (among many beliefs we neither espouse nor promote) and the one you linked to is, quite strictly, a non-secular site of the highest order. As such, its facts are presupposed to be not suitable for posting to this site until proven otherwise.
If confused, please re-read the posting agreements you clicked through when agreeing to the terms of this site. They are wonderfully and refreshingly clear.
[quote=Chris Martenson] Whenever you hear the words “sustainable growth” I invite you to recall this line of thinking and ask yourself if such a thing as sustainable growth is even possible. If it is, I have certainly I have never seen any workable plan, not even sketched onto a napkin in crayon, that explains how growth can be sustainable. Growth always ceases the only question is when and under what terms. [/quote] Population growth. The big issue which lays underneath every question about resource use, economic growth, and energy consumption.
We’ve always had a clever way to avoid thinking about it seriously. In the 19th century, when the Malthusian theory (that animal populations always grow exponentially until they run out of food or other resources) first became generally accepted, the Earth still seemed like an impossibly large place. In the United States alone it was felt that the amount of land was pratically limitless.
[quote] “Now this limitation of space – this danger that the human race may increase beyond the possibility of finding elbow room – is so far off as to have for us no more practical interest than the recurrence of the glacial period or the final extinguishment of the sun.”
Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 1878 [/quote] Then in the 20th century, as the real effects of pollution and population growth became apparent, it was implicitly assumed that humans would soon expand into outer space. The galaxy would be our future home, and the galaxy would furnish limitless space for us. Shows like “Flash Gordon,” “Star Trek” and countless science fiction movies about life in space reflected a desire to imagine what space life (which was so clearly coming) would be like.
Alas, as our ability to off-load billions of persons onto convenient nearby planets seems more and more a distant fantasy, we are left again to grapple with questions surrounding the inexorable and exponential growth of population.
What will happen with population growth?
In my personal opinion the answer is perfectly clear. Population growth will continue unabated until it becomes a pressing issue because, as Joubert said, “There are some acts of justice which corrupt those who perform them.”
Or, as Henry George framed it in 1878: [quote] “As the moral law forbids any forestalling of the methods by which the natural law gets rid of surplus population and thus holds in check a tendency to increase potent enough to pack the surface of the globe with human beings as sardines are packed in a box, nothing can really be done, either by individual or by combined effort…” [/quote] Even if controlling population is an act of justice, it seems humans as a species might be incapable of performing this act upon themselves without also corrupting themselves (or even performing it at all). Population control might work well in a single well-disciplined country such as China (or the Occidental nations, given the appropriate inducements). But there will always be the neighboring country that is incapable or unwilling to go along with the scheme. That would bring invasion, war, and genocide from surrounding nations attempting to preserve their “equal right” to limited resources.
The more likely result is the application of natural forces will check population growth for us, as it always has in the past.
Of course, this still leaves all the old questions:
Is it a fundamental right to generate as many offspring as one pleases?
Is it a fundamental right for a single family (growing or not) to consume as much resources as it pleases?
Is it a fundamental right for a nation (growing or not) to consume as much as it pleases?
Is it a fundamental right for a single person (sexually reproducing or not) to consume as much resources as they please?
In my opinion, whether we call these things “fundamental rights” will largely determine the degree of civility or barbarity in the future. Why? Because when ten people each believe that they have a “fundamental and inalienable right” to consume two slices of an eight-slice cake, there will be big trouble.
As long as fundamental human needs are commingled in economies as options among the varieties of wants businesses have honored, you will have a point. We allow people to starve and suffer in all kinds of ways while some acquire more and more toys, including weapons. Population cannot honestly be blamed for much when such structures not only persist, but are sustained.
That said, if more people chose to limit family size by means acceptable to them, justice for all beings would be a slower-moving target.
JRF29 - Excellent post! I believe that we no longer have any control on population. Only the end of available resources - and then what ensues will dictate who survives, who dies and who is still making babies.
Just like it’s too late to ride your bike to work to make a difference in oil depletion.
It’s not however too late to grow a Huge garden and feed your friends and family. You just might need a couple of 15 year olds (got em) with a 22’s to guard it night and day.
I see Zerohedge just picked up this excellent post.
A 12% tax increase would be devastating, obviously. A no-brainer. But what would happen if the savings rate went up to 12%? Does an increase in the savings rate also correlate to a 1-1 drop in the GDP? Although we certainly need more savings in the U.S. for sure!
Chris, thanks.
Understood, I didn’t realize it was a ‘pro-life’ site, I judged the site by the merits of the argument and the references. It’s still hard to imagine some solution to population control without some view that collectivism is more important than the individual, an argument that fails my logic.
I’m definitely in agreement with you about the garden but most folks don’t realize who quickly that asset can be depleted or destroyed. Windstorms, hail, floods, disease infestation, insect infestation, animal pests, etc., etc. can reduce your garden to next to nothing in short order. Ever see what Mt. St. Helens did to gardens and farms in Yakima 150 miles away? Furthermore, if folks were truly desperate for food, a couple of kids with .22s wouldn’t stand a chance against a group of men with military type weapons, night vision, body armor, and tactical know-how.
Always think redundancy, back-up, and fall back plans.
I hope you believe it to be a predicament, something that doesn’t have a “solution” as you have defined it in a different writing. If you think it’s a “problem”, your non-evil solutions are rather limited, are they not?
Per Dr. Barletts list, the “nice” solutions are abstenence and small families. Do you really think logical thinking can overcome a young males impulses? You can have a secular website, but you can’t ignore the fact that certain faiths (the big ones!) view large families as very desirable, and are against the most popular ways to limit family growth.
Please tell me you believe it to be a predicament.
I find it unbelievable that they had 19,000 law enforcement officers at the G-20 meeting with security costs totalling $900 million!. Maybe there’s another E in Enforcement costs. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=11024899
Thanks jhart5,
I’m working through the economic blueprint - the concepts look solid. Don’t be surprised if I carry the gauntlet on these ideas in future posts. Thanks for bringing this to my attention - it looks like it explicitly covers energy/economy/environment and if it misses out on exponential growth it does pick up on healthcare which, since service based, theoretically shouldn’t see declines in a world of less material abundance.
[quote=sofistek]Great article, Chris.
One could break down that need for more jobs in another way. If the population is growing and/or not everyone who wants a job has one, then more jobs are needed. However, you’re right that population growth must end and we need to figure out how to end it before nature does it for us. It seems as though no-one wants to address the issue and everyone is keeping their fingers crossed that population growth will end through demographics, leveling out somewhere north of 9 billion in the second half of the century. They are also keeping their fingers crossed that 9-10 billion people can be safely accommodated without trashing the planet.
I’m so glad you stated explicitly that “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. However, amazingly, some people, even some who otherwise appear to understand our predicament, think growth can go on forever. Some posit the idea of a small amount of growth (a small fraction of a percent, say). I know, it’s incredible. Some posit the idea of efficiency fuelling growth. That’s incredible too - just improve efficiency by x% per year and the economy can grow by some proportional amount. Bizarre thinking, but common. Just like another thought that scarce resources can always be substituted for.
I’d like to see this message emphasised more here: growth is unsustainable. Clearly we have a need for zero growth (probably after a period of contraction) but have you given any thought to what society might look like with zero growth? This is something I haven’t quite managed to get my head around. Would a zero growth economy have any similarity to today’s growth based economy? How would communities be organised, would businesses be recognisable (profits seem to be incompatible with zero growth). Why would a business start up, if it can’t grow itself or grow the market? What businesses make no sense in a zero-growth world? And so on. Are you planning any articles that address these things?
Tony
[/quote]
Hey Sofistek,
Making fundamental changes to a system that we’ve lived our entire lives within brings forth the unknown. Fortunately we have a living example of the type of society that is possible by getting off of debt based money (the force behind the growth imperative) Please research the Island State of Guernsey. Ellen Brown had this to say about Guernsey in this article:
With respect to our current population with respect to the planet earth the growth paradigm will end sooner rather than later. The beauty of a sovereign money system is that the economy can grow, shrink, or remain at par and always be a “healthy” economy.
TS
Hmm, all those tests, all that medical equipment, supplies, drugs, sure look pretty resource intensive to me. A few days ago, I believe in the Daily Digest was an article about how Greece is already facing problems in hospitals due to supply shortages. In fact, I would say hospitals and medical trade in general uses a lot of plastic since most everything is disposable for sanitary reasons.
The only real similarity to WWll here would be that taking another 12% from the remaining productive segment of our society would be reminisent of the stripping of wealth and freedoms done by the Nazi’s to many of its people at that time. If we don’t stop the bailouts and the prop-ups and trying to stimulate an already dead monetary system, 12% will make no difference anyway.
[quote=Romans12.2] It's not however too late to grow a Huge garden and feed your friends and family. You just might need a couple of 15 year olds (got em) with a 22's to guard it night and day.[/quote]
I'm definitely in agreement with you about the garden but most folks don't realize who quickly that asset can be depleted or destroyed. Windstorms, hail, floods, disease infestation, insect infestation, animal pests, etc., etc. can reduce your garden to next to nothing in short order. Ever see what Mt. St. Helens did to gardens and farms in Yakima 150 miles away? Furthermore, if folks were truly desperate for food, a couple of kids with .22s wouldn't stand a chance against a group of men with military type weapons, night vision, body armor, and tactical know-how.
Always think redundancy, back-up, and fall back plans.[/quote]
Aah, ao, now you’ve hit on one of my big anxieties! If everything remained civil, having a thriving garden and some livestock might suffice. But my concern about lack of law, and many people desperate for any food they can find, sometimes makes the whole garden/orchard/etc effort seem futile. I can think of a back-up plan or 2, but it is kind of like the current investing climate: there aren’t a whole lot of good choices out there (at least, that I have been able to identify). But I do agree with your thinking on this!
Ok , So it seems we are to think the whole predicament is overpopulation … to many people using up all the resources . Who are we going to get rid of ? Babies , girls , boys, old people, fat people , lazy people, Christians , Muslims , brown eyed people, blue eyed people. people with IQ lower than 125 … what is your plan here ? Who is going to make the decision ? Maybe I would vote for the rich greedy ones who have more than one gas using vehicle per family and puts many miles on it each year or those that use up much resources on recreation and pleasure . If we tell ourselves these things long enough we will start believing we are right and talk ourselves into some ungodly situations for sure .
I know you are not suggesting abortion or genocide here, but when a seed or thought gets started the situation ethics kicks in and we will find ourselves in big trouble .
If people were just responsible for taking care of themselves and their own family … Parents , Grandparents , children . No Exceptions , If you don’t work you don’t eat Unless you are truly a widow , orphan , or handicapped with no family to care for you … If you choose to have 6 children you take care of them ALL and provide for their needs . If you choose to have no children you find someone who will care for you in your old age with out Govt. . interference or assistance. . Teenagers as well as adults would reconsider their actions. If you can not provide for your baby you give it to someone who wants to and can . So many things would work themselves out . When I was in the hospital in Japan my family was even responsible to take care of my daily needs.
Not all the situations would be covered but you get what I mean . Many people now are so selfish that they will push their responsibility onto whom ever they can. They think they are entitled to special treatment and do not have to be responsible for their own actions . You would be surprised that people with more than two children can leave a lot smaller foot print and consume less than those that have only one or two. They are way better at recycling and reusing and just getting by with less things . They can get by with much cheaper grocery and utility bills.
More awareness on our consumerism and entitlements ! Raising selfish people that think they can just use all they want … no matter how they get it … is a lot of the dilemma . The prisons are full of them at our expense .
Just thoughts here … I know someone will shoot holes all over these ideas and there are no perfect solutions but I think a 180 degree turn is what we need because the way we are headed is not working .
I’m not sure where your 5 classifications came from, and why one would need to fall into these categories?
I’m actually a married person who chose not to have children after reading Dr. Erlich’s book, living through the 1st oil crises of the 70’s, reading the global 2000 report commissioned by Jimmy Carter, and studying the relationships between animal populations and limited resources.
I have not seen much evidence to support, what I believe to be the wrongly postulated hypothesis, and extreme oversimplification of the laffer curve. I would offer the personal tax rates of 90% and the corporate rates of 52% of the early 60’s, along with the 1942 tax increase by FDR, the 1993 Clinton tax increase, deficit reduction tax increase of 1984, and the budget reduction act of 1989, all as examples that did not correspond to the claims of the laffer curve.
With all due respect, I think it would be a mistake to base policy on an assumption that for every 1% tax increase there is a 1% drop in GDP, especially since there are plenty of examples that dispute the claim. Just as your example of a 100% tax rate would lead to a collapse in government revenues is correct, the other extreme of a 0% tax rate would also lead to a lawless collapse of a society without enforcement capabilities.
I would also argue that the economic conditions of today is causing capital to find safe havens such as Tbills and a search for the next asset bubble such as gold, oil, and emerging markets. It is not going to expand the productive economy, due to a lack of consumer demand which must be increased. Only the government can create the demand for solar/wind/hi speed trains … that can lead to a sustainable, renewable economy. You have stated the two options you believe we have (cost cutting and continued borrowing) are mathematically unworkable, and I agree. I, and many others, say that tax increases must be a part of a workable solution to our debt problems.
So far, the main arguments against a tax increase seems to be, the government can’t do anything right so let it sink, and tax increases will cause a proportional drop in GDP. There is nothing that can be presented that would satisfy the beliefs of the former, and there is very little evidence to support the latter.
None of the choices are good. Tax increases, if, and that’s a BIG IF, used properly by the government, can work. The other alternative is economic collapse/civil unrest/ and possible war, from an austerity driven depression, or economic collapse from a debt driven bankruptcy crises. Tax increases may be a slim hope, but it’s better than no hope at all.
James
Go ahead and run with it. It’s fine with me. For quite some time I’ve been concerned with the future of this country and it’s possible economic meltdown. Knowing that the US Government, Congress, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Corporate America and the financially elite [CFR] probably would never be able to come up with a viable workable solution to save the country from eventual collapse. Any solution will probably have to come from and be implemented by the people of the United States one way or another.
Earlier this week I came across the Zero Cost Economy by economist Farid Khavari. It’s the first workable solution that I’ve run across so far that could save America from financial debt destruction and becoming citizens of the New World Order. I was hoping that Chris Martinson would come across my earlier post and comment on its validity. There are a few sites out there that are just starting to post articles regarding these State owned and run Banks. If you like I can forward the ones I have run across in a later post.