Seems like we have a ghost in the machine with image serving.
On it.
I'm guessing that the obvious limitations of a finite planet idea bumps into a couple of belief systems.The limitations may be "obvious", but they're specious. Your belief that a finite planet conflicts with a U.S. GDP of 10 times, 100 times, or 1000+ times the present value (in inflation-adjusted dollars) simply comes from your lack of knowledge of economics. It would be wise for you to ask some people with advanced degrees in economics whether the U.S. GDP can ever be $80+ trillion (in 2015 dollars). My guess is that 9 out of 10 of them will say, "Of course. Why would you think this couldn't be so?"
You're clearly confused about GDP. The definition of GDP is, "The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis." (Emphasis added.)
Value is not a physical thing. So, for example, the value of non-durable goods in the U.S. is $2,172.4 billion in the table you reference. If that value doubles, it doesn't mean the quantity of things doubles. In fact, the quantity of things could go down, even while the value doubles. For example, the market capitalization (the total value of New York Times stock) roughly doubled from January 2013 to the present:
That does not mean that the New York Times is producing more physical newspapers. In fact, they're probably producing fewer physical newspapers. Value is not a physical thing.
This is very basic, and has been repeatedly explained by people who understand economics:
This post makes more sense to me if you replace the word "value" with "price".
Whatever. I'm off to hug my Paul Krugman teddy bear…
Note: All prices quoted above are denominated in fractionally reserved thin-air printed USDs.
Inflammatory, non-value added comment. My bad.
I've not read anything quite so disconnected from reality since the OpEd in the WSJ on fracking the other day.
This notion of "value" is utterly meaningless. More value simply means nothing unless and until it translates into something…like cash or higher output per unit of input.
Note that 'output' means more stuff, and that cash has no value at all unless you can spend it on something. A lot of that "something" involves real, physical things. Imagine that Elon Musk creates a lot of this 'value' of which you speak by selling a lot of Teslas to a lot of people.
Super. Now what? Do people get to work any faster in their Teslas? Do they themselves create more value because they drive Teslas? No, they do not.
And what do you suppose Elon did with all the 'value' he created? that's right, he turned it into cash and then he spent that cash on such things as this 20,248 square foot house.
I'm not begrudging Elon anything he might want, although I find his level of consumption a bit over the top for my taste and internal barometer, but we're all different people, right?
Money without spending it on something has no meaning.
The fundamental error on display here and in the utterly ridiculous Telegraph article by some detached economist is a failure to understand that money is merely a claim on real wealth. Who cares if the stock market rises another 1,000% if that merely represents unrealized "value" that then has to be converted into cash to have any actual value, and the amount of claims all that liberated cash would represent happens to be several times larger than the amount of real stuff out there?
By saying that 'value is not a physical thing' you are revealing a profound inability to connect even the most basic of dots. Open your eyes, look around, see what people are doing as they 'create value' out there in the real world, and notice that they are consuming and that every act of consumption requires energy…including especially those computers you love to cite.
You might want to check out the power requirements for data centers…a large one housed in a single big-ish building typically uses as much electricity as a small town.
I rode into Melbourne last night on the 6 lane freeway. I needed no graphs.It was all there before me.
6 lanes of vehicles, one hundred miles long and all going 110kms/hr. It was an eye opener to this country hick.
Guess what happens next? You don't need no stinking models. You just need to look, and think . What happens next?
Period.
Game. Set. Match. Done.
I chopped my initial reply down because I didn't want to waffle, but I think I'll stick it all up, as the actress said to the bishop.
David yeah I have seen the crash course, it was ok. I've been poking my nose into peak oil for quite a while.
Anyway the Krishnamurti thing, that's right it's one of the non-dual states. You can swing it as nothing special about technoogy, but I think the thing that people don't want to hear is that there is nothing special about nature either. Separating nature from man made thing is common in christianity and such traditions etc but this is a mental exercise, any christian mystic will have found the same as Krishnamurti, that it's just a natural facet of the same thing. This includes all the pollution and dangerous products. Aversion to these is an instinctual thing, like aversion to feces and poisonous insects, but it's all natural and it's all equally sacred. IMO.
In 10,000 BC to be one with all would be to be one with trees, mountains, pottery and logboats. In 0 AD to be one with all would be to be one with trees, mountains, ox carts, galleys, aquaducts. For krishnamurti it was trees, mountains, cars, hand tools. For a silicone valley guy it's trees, mountains and server farms. For a Beijing factory worker it's trees, sky, buildings, smog, traffic.
So do the hippies and indigenous people have it right, that mother Earth is sacred, civilisation is profane, we are killing Gaia and such ? Or is that half a story ?
What happens to this as humans go into space, depend on technology, leave the Earth totally, or go the full transhumanist trip and go bionic ?
Assume a doomer collapse scenario in which society splits into a shrunk elite hanging on in guarded citadels, maybe even in orbit, and a mass living in favelas and rubbish dumps and deep in the woods. It's going to be the same. Anyone having a real spiritual experience in their guarded compound is going to be experiencing themselves one with the mountains, trees, air conditioning, swimming pool, hired goons, humvee. Someone in the favela will experience oneness with the mountains, trees, rubbish dump, open sewers, bicycles, old abandoned TVs etc. Someone deep in the woods is going to be one with the trees and forests, nice and simple. From orbit a spiritual experience is probably going to be something like Edgar Mitchell found as he was returning from the moon. It's generally oneness with whatever the experiencer perceives, whatever and wherever that is - unless you want to get into even wilder non-local territory.
Perfectly legit to grieve for the passing of interglacial ecosystem, but spirituality won't end with it. I personally would prefer the trees and mountains to stick around a while before the next glaciation.
By saying that 'value is not a physical thing' you are revealing a profound inability to connect even the most basic of dots.No, Chris, I'm revealing that I've read and understand basic economics.
The Hope diamond currently has a value of over $200 million. If I took a hammer and broke it in two pieces and then super-glued the pieces back together, the physical size wouldn't change…but the value would likely change significantly.
Similarly, the size of the Hope diamond has no relationship to the size of $200 million worth of coal, copper, steel, platinum, timber, caviar, graphene, whatever.
Again, it's not like there's any controversy at all about what I've written…or what Tim Worstall wrote. Here's a blog by an economist (Noah Smith). He has links to more than 10 other blogs written by economists in the right hand column of his blog:
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/economists-dont-have-physics-envy.html
Go to 10 of them at random and ask them this question:
"Mark Bahner says that the U.S. economy could grow to more than $80 trillion, in 2015 dollars. I say he's crazy. Which one of us do you think is correct?"
I'll be happy to bet you $20 that at least 9 out of 10 of them (who offer a definitive opinion) will say that I'm correct, and you don't know what you're talking about.
Nine out of ten keynesian economists recommend fractionally reserved fiat currency to debt-enslave the masses. What a load of crap.
In the article, Chris said
The same story is written everywhere, with every example sharing the same common element of presumed perpetual growth. Everybody plans on growing steadily, forever into the future, amen.I am not an economist, but here is my thought experiment.
I have a small farm that I develop as a side venture. Hopefully it is becoming my retirement fund.
As I add mini-enterprises to the farm they take up resources like building space, lumber, fields, etc. They also (theoretically) increase my farm's gross production. Let's pretend that eventually every nook and cranny of my farm is engaged in something productive, and that all of the farmland within a reasonable distance is unavailable for me to use to expand.
At that point I would no longer be a "growing steadily" business. I am out of resources with which to expand my farm.
Undoubtedly inflation would allow me to raise my prices so that the economic "value" in a statistic would increase. But the actual value in terms of how many people my farm will feed will remain constant.
So in my thought experiment I think that Chris is vindicated within the larger context of the piece he has written. Quibbling over the one example of the US economy reaching some arbitrary number seems to ignore the bigger picture, which is that my farm's (fast) initial growth in gross production came as I used the resources available to me, and the later (slow) growth came as a function of money expansion.
The world is experiencing slow growth. The world is having a lot of money expansion. Is the world running short on resources? That is something to consider…
As long as I'm commenting, let me say that Arthur in 105 above is really keeping me on my toes by mixing miles and kilometers in the same sentence.
Interesting example Mark. I would argue that the hope diamond only has that insane value because of the ridiculous amount of fiat currency that's been created out of thin air in recent years. It's practical value is probably a few bucks.
There's a key assumption that I strongly suspect you're making here. I'll phrase is like this: "Professional economists have a good grasp of actual physical reality."
My personal experience tells me that assumption is false. I would argue that what they have a good grasp of is the the fantasy that comes when one assumes that money systems which exist only as markers for real stuff are more useful in trying to understand the world than the real stuff itself.
I am in denial
My tablet that I read articles on does have incredible value, its key components are made in multi-billion dollar fabs, one fab for the processor, one fab for the screen, and one fab for the memory (did I miss something?). The tablet's searching for information power is supported by warehouses of servers. The information I can gather is generated by millions of people working, given time for generate that informational work because the tractors and combines running on gas harvest and plant food to keep these people fed. My little tablet asks this collective of information questions and these supercomputers (powered by coal) give my little tablet the address for suggested places to look.
Economic turtles all the way down to… the bottom is gas and coal… I can see the bottom??? We are still burning fires as we did eons ago, we are just so much more creative with it and we found better stuff to burn. Is this denial?
After all of that my tablet is essentially a very valuable toy. Do I really absolutely need this tablet to live my life? It is giving me new stories and information; is this information a need? I think it is but I am in denial.
My family needs food, My family needs shelter, my family does have things it really needs. Earlier this thread talked about population; I have five kids and yes, I am in denial. A large reason I have five children is the stories I have inherited are deeply rooted in both the culture and religion I grew up in. Can I even change these stories for my children? I am too late to change this issue for myself, and yes I am in denial.
What do I need? What is valuable? What must I discard? The difference between these things is the blurring of denial.
Do I suffer from selection bias on the information I choose to use? Don't we all? I am in denial.
I can only change my denial so fast; my biggest hope is that I can change fast enough that my denial does not permanently harm me and all of my future posterity. I have to change my denial quickly enough to keep up with our changing reality. Is our stupid reality changing? Noah, really, I don't see any rain clouds!
Yes, values will be changing and they might even add up to a 80 trillion dollars GDP for the USA in 2080. Is that the price for humanities birthright in the USA?
What is the price in dollars worth for your denial?
Thank you for a space to let go a bit.
I am in denial
In case you were wondering.
Nermal is not quite Normal.
http://garfieldcomics.tumblr.com/post/2372720452/meet-nermal
Persig tackles the problem of Quality in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycling"
This is a philosophical argument that has long roots. (Let us hope we do not come to blows, which is the traditional way of resolving the matter)
The argument is between the Rhetoricians and Aristotle's mob. The Rhetoricians claimed that there was such a thing as Arete (roughly Excellents as opposed to the Aristotelian view of the Forms)
Persig shows that the Rhetoricians were correct, but they lost the fisticuffs. This is why the phrase " it is only a Rhetorical argument" is offered as a dismissive. As though that closes off the discussion.
So here we go again.
But it might offer us an opportunity to escape the iron grip of the fact of our limited rubbish dump. We could continue expanding the economy by re using materials to increase their Quality. At the moment the plastics and poisons floating about in the air and in the oceans have a negative Quality. This tablet that I am typing on has Quality but not enough.
I wonder if the Keynsian economist would like to address this issue so that we can resolve the issue traditionally?
PS : I have just had another email about Cold Fusion that I have not read yet. Energy is the Key to our survival. Oh, and we need a good dollop of schizophrenia too. Nermal thinking just won't cut the mustard.
We have got to get everyone off the planet. Quality will plummet if we fail.
(I wonder if there is any connection between Quality and entropy?)
These people are definitely not "Keynesian" economists:
Scott Sumner
David Henderson
Veronique de Rugy
Don Boudreaux
Bob Murphy
I doubt you'd get any different answer from them.
Mark, maybe we should all post on Facebook and whoever gets the most likes wins! Yay!
has no meaning". My favorite quote from Krishnamurti, as long as we are bringing him up. Nobody likes to talk about the destructive side of creation or death or especially about responsibility, but its all part of the package. States of non-duality, where the division between the perceiver and the thing perceived, are not quite what they are cracked up be. Hard to convince the "scientifically" minded sometimes that such a thing is possible, but such drug free drug trips are entirely possible. But you still have to get up in the morning and make breakfast and process through all the crap you inherited as part of your physical incarnation. Perhaps that is a little harsh, but I hope you get my drift. Perceptual transformations from such experiences are important part of our species evolution, but they are one step in a long process.
Everyone hackles at the idea of limits. I get it. But that is kind of the thrust of this whole site in a way (my apologies for putting what goes on here in such a small box, in lot of ways it is much more than that of course). It is an expression of an aspect of what humanity is processing right now. We are in the process of transmuting our conception of growth from the material (GPD, if anybody still thinks those numbers are real, I have some real estate I'd like to sell you) to the immaterial. Nothing worse that taking spiritual principals and driving them into the dirt by by trying to materialize them. Things rapidly devolve into the senseless and the insane. The answer to enthalpy is consciousness. The use of spiritual principles to and explain away material limitations is a futile exercise. Can a shift in consciousness allow us to do so much more with so much less that it will seem like there are no limits? Yes. But I can guaranty you it has nothing what so ever to do with mining extraterrestrial bodies.
it really pathetic that strict measures are still not taken to overcome this upcoming catastrophe…!!!
My interpretation of the Quantum Erasure Experiment is that the illusion of Reality will show us whatever is necessary for our development.
If that requires turning barren asteroids into Life, then the necessary history will be generated to Support such an observation.
So far I am really enjoying this beautiful simulation. Tomorrow I will be presented with a brand new simulation, complete with the necessary memories to support it.
I really don't understand the necessity of this spelling challenge though. Perhaps it is to slow my thoughts down so that I can get all my ducks in a row.
Consider this input as my discussion with the Author. Perhaps the illusion will be adjusted accordingly. But then I would never know if my memories are also fixed, now would I?
This was all hinted to by the Author in the Anime production "Ghost in the Shell" which inspired "The Matrix" . I prefered the the Japanese version. Hollywood is too preachy for my taste. They are always slipping in some social norm with which I am uncomfortable.
Anyway the Japanese put more effort into their supporting music.
Kenji Kawai - Cinema Symphony - Ghost In The Shel…: http://youtu.be/z64HCi2rQkE