Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Otern]

It peaked, then it went down, as production in lower income countries could supply the goods at a better price. You use more electricity today than then, but not directly. It's being used for production in those other countries, and consumed in the west.

OK, I see that.
Let's hope it puts an end to all those ''why should we change our habits look at what China does'' arguments.

Don't think I've ever used that argument though.

[Otern]

Growth, both economic and population is the root problem and why all these environmental issues are happening to one degree or another right? Since no one wants to stop economic growth, it seems like most of these policies and proposals don't do much of anything and we will continue to grow pop wise and econ wise until external forces stop us regardless of what type of energy we use or where we stand politically. If that was not your point, then I retract my support, and apologize for misunderstanding you.

Yeah, that was pretty much it. The proposals help a little, but they're just postponing the inevitable.

[Montegriffo]

Growth, both economic and population is the root problem and why all these environmental issues are happening to one degree or another right? Since no one wants to stop economic growth, it seems like most of these policies and proposals don't do much of anything and we will continue to grow pop wise and econ wise until external forces stop us regardless of what type of energy we use or where we stand politically. If that was not your point, then I retract my support, and apologize for misunderstanding you.

Doesn't change the fact that improvements in technology can drive emissions downwards while still maintaining production levels.

[Montegriffo]

It peaked, then it went down, as production in lower income countries could supply the goods at a better price. You use more electricity today than then, but not directly. It's being used for production in those other countries, and consumed in the west.

OK, I see that.
Let's hope it puts an end to all those ''why should we change our habits look at what China does'' arguments.

Don't think I've ever used that argument though.

Obviously not, you have more than half a clue and don't try to scapegoat others for our self inflicted problems.

[heydaralon]

There is a great big lie that these NGO's and foundations are all telling us though. On the one hand, you have philanthropists and influential people telling us that we need to raise the standard of living in poor countries so they can all live fuller, better lives. On the other hand, you have influential people and philanthropists telling us that our own current ways of life are all going to destroy the environment and collapse society. If that is the case, then both of these goals cannot be achieved at the same time, nor should they be. I've heard the argument made by Bill Gates and Dan Carlin that as countries enter into whatever we call modernity, childbirths drop, but even still, if all of Africa and Asia and South America stopped facing a growing population, but lived comparably to the West, we are still talking about a level of growth and consumption never before experienced, which environmentalists tell us is not sustainable. So again, there is a lie in here from someone.

[Otern]

Doesn't change the fact that improvements in technology can drive emissions downwards while still maintaining production levels.

There's limits to what technology can offer here. It's not magic. Unless we start up nuclear fusion, or manages to get thorium breeders going in a couple years, we're not going to make any considerable contribution.

And even with those, we're not really stopping it. Just postponing it a little more. Because while we can make production more efficient, we can never reduce production. It constantly has to grow. Even reaching 100% energy efficiency in production won't stop that.

[Otern]

There is a great big lie that these NGO's and foundations are all telling us though. On the one hand, you have philanthropists and influential people telling us that we need to raise the standard of living in poor countries so they can all live fuller, better lives. On the other hand, you have influential people and philanthropists telling us that our own current ways of life are all going to destroy the environment and collapse society. If that is the case, then both of these goals cannot be achieved at the same time, nor should they be. I've heard the argument made by Bill Gates and Dan Carlin that as countries enter into whatever we call modernity, childbirths drop, but even still, if all of Africa and Asia and South America stopped facing a growing population, but lived comparably to the West, we are still talking about a level of growth and consumption never before experienced, which environmentalists tell us is not sustainable. So again, there is a lie in here from someone.

A higher standard of living will decrease the birth rate, as western countries show. We have a high standard of living, and lots of educated women who won't have any kids. But then we fuck it all up by going "oh, but the economy!", and import lots of people just to not have a decreasing population and a smaller economy.

So we keep importing people, to have an edge over poorer countries, so they'll stay poor, and can keep making babies, for us to import.

I think it would be better if a state could just accept the consequences of a lowered birth rate for a while, and see if the economy truly do collapse, or if it just means thing get a little bit more expensive. I think we could afford things getting a little bit more expensive here at least, no reason to artificially keeping the population growth positive.

[heydaralon]

I agree. I have said it many times, but it will be interesting to see what happens if this automation stuff comes to pass and actually disrupts our employment in a meaningful way. That is one of my biggest reasons against continual immigration and amnesty. A lot of these people at our southern border are not high skilled workers as is. If we start automating a bunch of menial jobs, we will have a huge surplus of unskilled labor that is unemployed in our nation. But it gets more challenging, because they will of course get on every govt program known to man and the size of the government will grow (entitlement programs, bilingual services, more cops because poor economy creates more property crime), while tax revenue shrinks. I don't see how something like that is sustainable. In fact, I worry about this problem far more than I do about global warming or any other environmental concern. Assuming that this new sort of economy comes to pass, I suspect Japan is well prepared to weather the storm. Highly cohesive society, low birth rate, strong shared culture etc. I don't have even the slightest effect on policy, nor do I have a crystal ball, so I guess we'll see what happens.

[TheReal_ND]

Japan is probably going to collapse from all the radiation they have received thanks to Fukushima. I say that because their demographics are already extremely tenuous and it is quite likely the long term effects of the disaster are being covered up by Tepco, partnered with General Electric.

[Montegriffo]

There is a great big lie that these NGO's and foundations are all telling us though. On the one hand, you have philanthropists and influential people telling us that we need to raise the standard of living in poor countries so they can all live fuller, better lives. On the other hand, you have influential people and philanthropists telling us that our own current ways of life are all going to destroy the environment and collapse society. If that is the case, then both of these goals cannot be achieved at the same time, nor should they be. I've heard the argument made by Bill Gates and Dan Carlin that as countries enter into whatever we call modernity, childbirths drop, but even still, if all of Africa and Asia and South America stopped facing a growing population, but lived comparably to the West, we are still talking about a level of growth and consumption never before experienced, which environmentalists tell us is not sustainable. So again, there is a lie in here from someone.

I'd argue that we should do both ie reduce our levels of over-consumption to enable developing countries to improve their standard of living. It's really not a popular position to have though and I'm not going to get much support for it due to vested interests wanting us to keep buying while at the same time keeping them poor. I do understand the downsides of globalism in this context. Our corporations like poor countries to do our manufacturing for us so we can afford the benefits of cheap labour and products.
This is why I support authoritarian measures on this, I just don't think we will do anything otherwise.
Of course, it gets interpreted as just another socialist, wealth distribution scheme by those who think taxation is theft and all government is bad.
/shrug