Posted: Oct 06, 2013 5:02 am
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:I must say I don't get quite what you're driving at here.
It turns out that the idea that all economists and politicians are so mathematically inept they don't get basic concepts is questionable. Assigning a position to them that they did not say and which there is no evidence to believe is a straw man.
The "no-go" theorem of infinite growth doesn't say anything about whether we can have exponential growth for 200 years and politicians or economists never imply otherwise that I am aware of, it's not representative of what they are saying. Nor does growth for 200 years necessarily imply exponential growth for 200 years either. It's not like economists are puzzled over China's 10% growth compared to the USAs 3%, and indeed make forecasts according to situation, with 8% growth per year for China over the next decade being considered poor in many quarters.
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Thommo wrote:Yet, at this seemingly modest rate, the size of the economy doubles every 22 years, quadrupling in 44 years, and expanding by a factor of 8 in less than three generations. Such growth demands commensurate doubling, quadrupling, and octupling of the energy sources and raw materials that feed the economy.
This one isn't true either.
How so? Care to explain?
It's just not a true statement, doubling of the economy does not demand a doubling in resource consumption. Efficiency changes, recycling, changes in types of consumption from industrial to service etc. can all provide growth at lower rates of increase, or even lower absolute rates of consumption. Simple example - growth in video games during the era of digital distribution.