Global overpopulation

[Hastur]

I think you need to adjust your concept of growth. Not all forms of growth uses extra resources. It's often quite the opposite. Most growth comes from achieving the same result by while using less resources and labour. Increased productivity. Recycling also adds to growth as does less waste.

You're talking about more efficient use of resources, contributing to increased economical growth. But there's a limit to efficiency. There's only two times, over the last 200 years the global energy usage decreased. The 1979 oil crisis, and the 2007 recession. And it both cases, it took less than two years to be on the same level, and increasing rapidly again.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-produ ... gy-sources

Efficiency drives profitability, which in turn drives consumption, which also drives profitability. In a world with limited resources, this can't continue forever, and it's all just a question of when the realities of maximum carrying capacity hits us. The West will probably manage a lot better than the rest of the world. But there will be bad times ahead globally. The worst will probably be sub-Saharan Africa.

Just don't blame growth. We will never solve this with a zero growth policy. That is just green Marxist, pie in the sky, anti capitalist dogma, idiocy.

[Fife]

Like I said, behold the Miracle of marxist Central Planning.

Everybody starves, unless they get a bullet to the neck first.

[Otern]

Just don't blame growth. We will never solve this with a zero growth policy. That is just green Marxist, pie in the sky, anti capitalist dogma, idiocy.

It won't be solved. That's the issue. People don't want to go back in standards of living. Doesn't matter if it's a free state, or a dictatorship, the same human rules apply. So there's really no policy change or alternatives that can change the course we're on.

The free market liberalists are just as retarded as the communists when they say their ideology is what will solve this. Because it's not a question of markets, but physics.

It's like having a bunch of rabbits on an island, dropping a container load of food in the middle of it. The rabbits are going to multiply beyond what that island is capable of supporting, as long as they keep eating from that container. Today's "technology will solve it"-proponents, are the rabbits who keeps saying another container will be dropped soon. But it probably won't. We didn't invent fossil fuels, we just found it, just like the rabbits didn't make the container load of food drop on their island.

[Fife]

"we just found it"


Stand by your next shipment, wabbits, right up your fuzzy cottontail hole

[Otern]

Like I said, behold the Miracle of marxist Central Planning.

Everybody starves, unless they get a bullet to the neck first.

The free market is not a guarantee against starvation either though. The invisible hand didn't stop the great famine in Ireland, or the Bengal famine in 1943, or the Moroccan famine. I think future famines will be quite similar to them. It will be the poorer nations that suffer the most, which is also why it's beneficial to keep the economy growing here.

We're not really going to care too much about a couple billion African, Asians and Southern Americans dying anyway.

[Fife]

Ah, yes, we all demand a "guarantee," I forgot.

Destroy human freedom and prosperity, and impose your will because Muh Potaters. What a "market failure" that was. :goteam: :drunk:

[Otern]

Ah, yes, we all demand a "guarantee," I forgot.

Destroy human freedom and prosperity, and impose your will because Muh Potaters. What a "market failure" that was. :goteam: :drunk:

Have I proposed the destruction of freedom and prosperity? No.

I haven't offered any solutions to this, because there aren't any. Just pointing out how the mindless faith in science and green energy, as the savior of all of humanity, is not based on actual science.

[Fife]

Nap time in the Motte, I see.

[brewster]

Today's "technology will solve it"-proponents, are the rabbits who keeps saying another container will be dropped soon. But it probably won't. We didn't invent fossil fuels, we just found it, just like the rabbits didn't make the container load of food drop on their island.

You ignore my post about new wind turbines being cheaper than feeding gas to existing gas generation plants, just like a "Host" robot on Westworld saying "that doesn't look like anything to me". Don't let anything mess with your worldview, man!

[Otern]

You ignore my post about new wind turbines being cheaper than feeding gas to existing gas generation plants, just like a "Host" robot on Westworld saying "that doesn't look like anything to me". Don't let anything mess with your worldview, man!

I don't think you understood. Wind turbines are great, and they're "cheap" in one sense, but less valuable in another. It's all got to do with energy storage. It's too simplistic to just view the cost of energy generation in price per kWh. Wind, solar, wave, all of that stuff is great because it's cheap when it does generate power. But we need something to generate power when the wind is still, or it's cloudy, or at night. This is where the value of storeable systems come in, of which gas, coal and hydropower are the most important ones today.

Wind energy will be even cheaper in the future, compared to fossil sources, as the cost of extracting fossil fuel rise. But they still lack the ability to store large amounts of energy, and produce it according to the fluctuating demands throughout the day.