Comments on: Limits to growth redux

Limits to growth redux

wilful — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:39:43 -0800

State of the World 2006 , an annual research report prepared by the Worldwatch Institute, has just been released, with a special focus on China and India. Although Limits to Growth type predictions have had their critics, many of the stats and projections presented have a certain brutal inevitability about them.

By: wilful

wilful — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:44:20 -0800

From the last link: "Since 1980, China's economy has been growing at a rate averaging about 9.5 per cent a year. That means it doubles in size every eight years. India's economy has been growing by only about 5.5 per cent a year, meaning that it doubles only every 13 years." "The US, with less than 5 per cent of the world's population, requires a remarkable quarter of global biocapacity to support itself. Europe and Japan, with 10 per cent of the world's population, require another quarter. At present, China and India, with almost 40 per cent, require another quarter." "China already uses 26 per cent of the world's crude steel, 32 per cent of the rice, 37 per cent of the cotton and 47 per cent of the cement."

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:46:25 -0800

was there any mention of the word: "sustainable" ?

By: unreason

unreason — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:58:15 -0800

So, to be brief, we're all screwed?

By: wilful

wilful — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:02:12 -0800

Of course, for the pedants amongst us (oh I know you're around) the 2006 report is not released annually. Here's the full list, BTW, since 1984.

By: wilful

wilful — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:04:23 -0800

unreason, short answer, yes. soil loss, desertification, excess water use, anthropogenic climate change, aren't things that loook easily amenable to a tech fix, not without a radical revolution in agriculture and lifestyle expectations.

By: sourbrew

sourbrew — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:07:28 -0800

peak earth

By: grex

grex — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:22:27 -0800

Oh well, I'm sure we'll figure out some way of living so that we all don't die. It'll just take a while.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:30:31 -0800

Paul Ehrlich vs. Julian Simon.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:41:12 -0800

I have hope in future generations, but not my own. It will take a WWI-scale environmental catastrophe to wake up from this age of innocence we all live in.

By: unreason

unreason — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:03:56 -0800

Damnit, if we were going to have a doomsday, why couldn't we get a cool one with aliens and robots and shit, rather than the low rent Soylent Green one?

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:36:38 -0800

Re Julian Simon: Christ, what an asshole.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:44:52 -0800

"Since 1980, China's economy has been growing at a rate averaging about 9.5 per cent a year. That means it doubles in size every eight years. India's economy has been growing by only about 5.5 per cent a year, meaning that it doubles only every 13 years." For that to mean anything, you need to account for the corresponding population growth rate. If your economy is growing at 4% and your population at 5%, then that's not quite good, is it? I don't know; I'm not an economist, but I think that's how it works.

By: wilful

wilful — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:26:48 -0800

Except, eideteker, the population growth rate is immaterial to the point of the quote, which is that consumption of inputs is predicted to double in 8 years for China. BTW, China's population growth is about 1%, India's about 2.5% (not that that's relevant).

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:32:48 -0800

Ok, thanks. I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I'm not an economist; I'd like to understand more about these numbers being thrown around.