Sub-Turing BradBot's presentation-of-self; John Gruber on spatial video in the Apple VisionPro; very briefly noted; Jan Hatzius's economic outlook, Sub-Turing BradBot I 1.0, & Chat-GPT has no...
Noah suffers from "number blindness", possibly as a result of short-term thinking. Of course we need growth in our current economic system - but it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.!
Simple math.
1% economic growth over the next century to 2123 implies a 2.7x increase in production. This may require similarly large increases in energy use, resource extraction, and even population size unless we can reduce population size but maintain growth with productivity gains. A planet with 2.7x the the current requirements to sustain economic growth?
But wait, that is merely a century hence. Surely we want civiolization to last longer than that? What abount the same growth for teh next millennium to 3023?
Well that results in an economy nearly 21,000x larger. Obviously the Earth cannot support this. Neither can any of the rocky planets, so it would mean that in a millennium, almost all of the human population would be living in space, perhaps filling teh solar system with habotats in a Dyson swarm.
And then what?
A millennium only looks back as far as the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066. Not exactly a long time historically, yet we would have effectively put our human future in a dead end. maybe all that production can be maintained by robots in the solar system, but to what end?
If we want to maintain a liveable Earth, with a population that lives well but doesn't destroy our biosphere, we simply have to consider nogrowth and degrowth strategies at least as far as consumption is involved. Earth would be far better off with a much smaller poplulation, all living comfortable lives at a high standard of living, with the most destructive of resource extraction and manufacturing tightly controlled and possibly even off-planet.
Current growth is just not sustainable over the long term. It is the same issue as decarbomnizing our energy production. There are always excuses to maintain "business as usual" rather than really aggressively working towards that goal.
"1% economic growth over the next century to 2123 implies a 2.7x increase in production. This may require similarly large increases in energy use, resource extraction, and even population size unless we can reduce population size but maintain growth with productivity gains. A planet with 2.7x the the current requirements to sustain economic growth?"
What does "production" mean here?
Economic "growth" is measured in money (or "value", if you will), not in "stuff". Indeed, economic growth is compatible even with -reduction- in the amount of "stuff" produced - so long as what is produced increases in value.
This confusion between "economic growth" and growth in "production" of stuff seems to me to be at the heart of the "degrowth" movement. (I'm half convinced that at least some of the people pushing "degrowth" understand this, and that this confusion is intentional.)
"Economic "growth" is measured in money (or "value", if you will), not in "stuff". Indeed, economic growth is compatible even with -reduction- in the amount of "stuff" produced - so long as what is produced increases in value."
Technically true, but in practice production continues to increase, whether extraction of raw materials, or manufacturing. I deliberately used a low value for GDP growth to allow for increases in intangibles like services, and substitution - e.g. remote working instead of commuting. If rising CO2 levels are not a crude indicator of rising production activity, I will eat my hat.
As for metric confusion. I would suggest it is the opponents of degrowth that are also confused as they constantly claim that degrowth will impoverish us as we "have less material goods". If an economy copuld be all intangibles, tourism, medical services, selling NFTs, then we could theoretically have a growing economy while coupled with a reduction in tangibles production. That would take a change in mindset. After all, the "electronic cottage" envisaged by Alvin Toffler in this book "Future Shock" (1970) is only now being realized, 50 years later, while vested interests are opposinfg remote work.
Both Brad and Noah are againsty NIMBYism, especially in California, but that requires homebuilding, which requires land and resources. Houses are not getting smaller either. Land is a finite resource and using it up is a zero sum game for natural ecosystems (although a lot of progress could be made by a reduction in farming, especially beef and dairy in the state).
Space cadets want to see human populations expand into space. Using space resources to contain those expanded populations, with the ultomate possibility of supporting trillions of people in a Dysaon swarm around the sun. I certainly would like to see a solar system wide economy, but I believe it will be robotic for economic reasons, with few people living in space for more than short tours, equivalent to sea rig work.
But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that degrowth is -necessary- because economic growth -requires- increasing resources, while at the same time recognizing that such is not a requirement.
I would note that my view (at least) is that -some- resource use is desirable. I think that, yes, indeed, people should have housing. I understand that much housing development, particularly in places like the USA, is extraordinarily wasteful, but that is not a requirement of providing housing. Further, I don't see what the alternative would be. Should it be "people should not have housing"? Or "we should just kill off a bunch of people so we don't need to house them"?
Also, it is not necessary that an economy be "all intangibles" for economic growth to occur without increasing "stuff". It requires only that the -growth- be in intangible factors (which may mean increases in quality of stuff as well an things that are purely intangible).
Finally, yes, obviously, some "growth" is stupid and wasteful. That doesn't mean that the solution is to "stop growth", any more than the fact that some books are stupid (and arguably wasteful) means that we should stop publishing books.
"But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that degrowth is -necessary- because economic growth -requires- increasing resources, while at the same time recognizing that such is not a requirement."
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that in practice, economic growth does require resource consumption - land, minerals, etc. plus energy. Degrowth implies either: reducing resources per capita, or reducing population size. We can mitigate some growth problems - recycle materials and use renewable energy. A fairer distribution of resources would benefit the most people too, although that would imply sharing the resources of the richer countries with the poorer ones. In rich countries, reducing the population is already happening with the citizenry, but is offset by immigration. Globally, population is increasing and may peak at 10 billion.
The carrying capacity of the planet is unknown, but what is clear to all but the the wilfully blind is that human activities are destroying the planet's biosphere. to the point that this destruction will severely imapct populations. Something has to give.
Arguing for ever more growth is not a viable long term solution.. What is possible is a per capita growth with a declining population - at least for a century. Who wants to scrape themselves off the planet first?
You have to be clear on what you are trying to argue.
Yes "economic growth does require resource consumption". But human existence requires resource consumption, and this has nothing to do with "growth". Even if we were to return to the living standards an population of the tenth century, we would still consume resources. The only way to avoid this is to eliminate humanity. The relevant question is whether growth requires INCREASING resource consumption. And the answer to that is "no".
To be sure: given a world in which many do not have enough (food, housing, etc.) we want to use our resources to ensure that they do get to enough. Where there are unhoused people we want to build housing, and that indeed requires resources.
But once we have achieved that, then continued economic growth does not require increasing resource use. We can achieve growth by better using existing resources or repurposing them in new ways. (We probably will use more energy, but energy is not a resource that is consumed, and need not be the result of additional consumption.)
I think you are starting to be obtuse. Growth means increasing something. That means the size of GDP, which still includes increased prodution of goods. We can become more efficient, but that is a short-term solution that runs out of road. Using up finite resources, but more importantly, pushing against the resilience of our planetary systems, is just plain stupid. As we bear ever higher costs of pollution and climate change, the paradox is that these "costs" are treated as plusses for GDP, even though they are actually the "broken windows fallacy". Pollute the air, health becomes poorer, healthcare is provided, GDP increases. As sea levels rise, properties must be beefed up or relocated, infrastructure improved, costs incurred, but GDP increases.
We could have negative GDP growth, but with a faster declining population, per capita GDP could still increase - rather like what happened after the Black Death in Europe. If we had a 10th century population, we could easily support our (renewable) food supply. A population of 10 bn with global heating, water shortages, crop failures, etc, not so much. Even if everything remained stable, a ZPG state, with slow economic growth that included increased extractive requirements, some pollution that increased with production, more waste heat from any energy source, and eventually the planet can no longer remain stable.
Not only are there few solutions that may work, the time is now very short to make great changes. The late James Lovelock though we were f**ked. Climate experts like Michael Mann say we should remaiin hopeful and not be doomsters, but I see very few signs of needed action. The UN just released a new report indicating that national plans in aggregate are woefully insufficient to head off the dire consequences of the planet heating.
Let's see what happens when Florida and much of the Southern US coastline is inundated by seawater. Maybe moving all the residents of Miami to upper stories and reworking the roads to be canals will increase GDP and make the survivors wealthier as a result! Riiiight.
Yglesias and NPI's: He mainly wandered around the point. CDC did not provide local decisionmakers with information and tools to allow THEM to decide what the most cost effective NPI's were.
Granted there was some queer political economics going on. My sources say teachers hated school closings, but the teachers' unions pushed them.
Central Country: Why should Chairman Xi or you or I worry about the Chinese exchange rate. That fewer dollars can find high returns in the Chinese economy is a problem, not the exchange rate!
Blanchard: Could we please aim a little higher for taxing and spending decisions that "sustainability? If we spend on things that have positive NPVs and finance that spending with taxes or borrowing depending on the NPV of the spending by the taxpayer or debt buyer, "sustainability" will take care of itself.
Noah Smith: Left Wing Dystopias.
Noah suffers from "number blindness", possibly as a result of short-term thinking. Of course we need growth in our current economic system - but it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.!
Simple math.
1% economic growth over the next century to 2123 implies a 2.7x increase in production. This may require similarly large increases in energy use, resource extraction, and even population size unless we can reduce population size but maintain growth with productivity gains. A planet with 2.7x the the current requirements to sustain economic growth?
But wait, that is merely a century hence. Surely we want civiolization to last longer than that? What abount the same growth for teh next millennium to 3023?
Well that results in an economy nearly 21,000x larger. Obviously the Earth cannot support this. Neither can any of the rocky planets, so it would mean that in a millennium, almost all of the human population would be living in space, perhaps filling teh solar system with habotats in a Dyson swarm.
And then what?
A millennium only looks back as far as the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066. Not exactly a long time historically, yet we would have effectively put our human future in a dead end. maybe all that production can be maintained by robots in the solar system, but to what end?
If we want to maintain a liveable Earth, with a population that lives well but doesn't destroy our biosphere, we simply have to consider nogrowth and degrowth strategies at least as far as consumption is involved. Earth would be far better off with a much smaller poplulation, all living comfortable lives at a high standard of living, with the most destructive of resource extraction and manufacturing tightly controlled and possibly even off-planet.
Current growth is just not sustainable over the long term. It is the same issue as decarbomnizing our energy production. There are always excuses to maintain "business as usual" rather than really aggressively working towards that goal.
"1% economic growth over the next century to 2123 implies a 2.7x increase in production. This may require similarly large increases in energy use, resource extraction, and even population size unless we can reduce population size but maintain growth with productivity gains. A planet with 2.7x the the current requirements to sustain economic growth?"
What does "production" mean here?
Economic "growth" is measured in money (or "value", if you will), not in "stuff". Indeed, economic growth is compatible even with -reduction- in the amount of "stuff" produced - so long as what is produced increases in value.
This confusion between "economic growth" and growth in "production" of stuff seems to me to be at the heart of the "degrowth" movement. (I'm half convinced that at least some of the people pushing "degrowth" understand this, and that this confusion is intentional.)
"Economic "growth" is measured in money (or "value", if you will), not in "stuff". Indeed, economic growth is compatible even with -reduction- in the amount of "stuff" produced - so long as what is produced increases in value."
Technically true, but in practice production continues to increase, whether extraction of raw materials, or manufacturing. I deliberately used a low value for GDP growth to allow for increases in intangibles like services, and substitution - e.g. remote working instead of commuting. If rising CO2 levels are not a crude indicator of rising production activity, I will eat my hat.
As for metric confusion. I would suggest it is the opponents of degrowth that are also confused as they constantly claim that degrowth will impoverish us as we "have less material goods". If an economy copuld be all intangibles, tourism, medical services, selling NFTs, then we could theoretically have a growing economy while coupled with a reduction in tangibles production. That would take a change in mindset. After all, the "electronic cottage" envisaged by Alvin Toffler in this book "Future Shock" (1970) is only now being realized, 50 years later, while vested interests are opposinfg remote work.
Both Brad and Noah are againsty NIMBYism, especially in California, but that requires homebuilding, which requires land and resources. Houses are not getting smaller either. Land is a finite resource and using it up is a zero sum game for natural ecosystems (although a lot of progress could be made by a reduction in farming, especially beef and dairy in the state).
Space cadets want to see human populations expand into space. Using space resources to contain those expanded populations, with the ultomate possibility of supporting trillions of people in a Dysaon swarm around the sun. I certainly would like to see a solar system wide economy, but I believe it will be robotic for economic reasons, with few people living in space for more than short tours, equivalent to sea rig work.
But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that degrowth is -necessary- because economic growth -requires- increasing resources, while at the same time recognizing that such is not a requirement.
I would note that my view (at least) is that -some- resource use is desirable. I think that, yes, indeed, people should have housing. I understand that much housing development, particularly in places like the USA, is extraordinarily wasteful, but that is not a requirement of providing housing. Further, I don't see what the alternative would be. Should it be "people should not have housing"? Or "we should just kill off a bunch of people so we don't need to house them"?
Also, it is not necessary that an economy be "all intangibles" for economic growth to occur without increasing "stuff". It requires only that the -growth- be in intangible factors (which may mean increases in quality of stuff as well an things that are purely intangible).
Finally, yes, obviously, some "growth" is stupid and wasteful. That doesn't mean that the solution is to "stop growth", any more than the fact that some books are stupid (and arguably wasteful) means that we should stop publishing books.
"But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that degrowth is -necessary- because economic growth -requires- increasing resources, while at the same time recognizing that such is not a requirement."
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that in practice, economic growth does require resource consumption - land, minerals, etc. plus energy. Degrowth implies either: reducing resources per capita, or reducing population size. We can mitigate some growth problems - recycle materials and use renewable energy. A fairer distribution of resources would benefit the most people too, although that would imply sharing the resources of the richer countries with the poorer ones. In rich countries, reducing the population is already happening with the citizenry, but is offset by immigration. Globally, population is increasing and may peak at 10 billion.
The carrying capacity of the planet is unknown, but what is clear to all but the the wilfully blind is that human activities are destroying the planet's biosphere. to the point that this destruction will severely imapct populations. Something has to give.
Arguing for ever more growth is not a viable long term solution.. What is possible is a per capita growth with a declining population - at least for a century. Who wants to scrape themselves off the planet first?
You have to be clear on what you are trying to argue.
Yes "economic growth does require resource consumption". But human existence requires resource consumption, and this has nothing to do with "growth". Even if we were to return to the living standards an population of the tenth century, we would still consume resources. The only way to avoid this is to eliminate humanity. The relevant question is whether growth requires INCREASING resource consumption. And the answer to that is "no".
To be sure: given a world in which many do not have enough (food, housing, etc.) we want to use our resources to ensure that they do get to enough. Where there are unhoused people we want to build housing, and that indeed requires resources.
But once we have achieved that, then continued economic growth does not require increasing resource use. We can achieve growth by better using existing resources or repurposing them in new ways. (We probably will use more energy, but energy is not a resource that is consumed, and need not be the result of additional consumption.)
I think you are starting to be obtuse. Growth means increasing something. That means the size of GDP, which still includes increased prodution of goods. We can become more efficient, but that is a short-term solution that runs out of road. Using up finite resources, but more importantly, pushing against the resilience of our planetary systems, is just plain stupid. As we bear ever higher costs of pollution and climate change, the paradox is that these "costs" are treated as plusses for GDP, even though they are actually the "broken windows fallacy". Pollute the air, health becomes poorer, healthcare is provided, GDP increases. As sea levels rise, properties must be beefed up or relocated, infrastructure improved, costs incurred, but GDP increases.
We could have negative GDP growth, but with a faster declining population, per capita GDP could still increase - rather like what happened after the Black Death in Europe. If we had a 10th century population, we could easily support our (renewable) food supply. A population of 10 bn with global heating, water shortages, crop failures, etc, not so much. Even if everything remained stable, a ZPG state, with slow economic growth that included increased extractive requirements, some pollution that increased with production, more waste heat from any energy source, and eventually the planet can no longer remain stable.
Not only are there few solutions that may work, the time is now very short to make great changes. The late James Lovelock though we were f**ked. Climate experts like Michael Mann say we should remaiin hopeful and not be doomsters, but I see very few signs of needed action. The UN just released a new report indicating that national plans in aggregate are woefully insufficient to head off the dire consequences of the planet heating.
Let's see what happens when Florida and much of the Southern US coastline is inundated by seawater. Maybe moving all the residents of Miami to upper stories and reworking the roads to be canals will increase GDP and make the survivors wealthier as a result! Riiiight.
Agree that the current population is unsustainable as it t contains lots of “overhead.”
I believe the chatbot avatar needs to be holding a mug of coffee.
Yglesias and NPI's: He mainly wandered around the point. CDC did not provide local decisionmakers with information and tools to allow THEM to decide what the most cost effective NPI's were.
Granted there was some queer political economics going on. My sources say teachers hated school closings, but the teachers' unions pushed them.
Finnish male school quotas: Presumably an x% tax on the "meritocratic" test scores of women would have been better.
Central Country: Why should Chairman Xi or you or I worry about the Chinese exchange rate. That fewer dollars can find high returns in the Chinese economy is a problem, not the exchange rate!
Blanchard: Could we please aim a little higher for taxing and spending decisions that "sustainability? If we spend on things that have positive NPVs and finance that spending with taxes or borrowing depending on the NPV of the spending by the taxpayer or debt buyer, "sustainability" will take care of itself.
Oliver Blanchard proves that Ptolmyic economics lives on.
For a paradigm shift:
https://www.boj.or.jp/en/about/press/koen_2023/data/ko231106a1.pdf