[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Try to find a desireable spot- ya know, not a chunk of desert or swamp- that isn't wall-to-wall people.

Try to do that on a little island like the one I'm on. At the same time an old primary school statistic is that the population of the world could fit on the Isle of White.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

...Yes the growth model is popular, even so historically, but that still doesn't explain it's necessity. Why would the quality of life indicators you listed- wealth, edu, knowledge, etc. not be present and/or advancing w/o growth?

OK - to turn it around a little - could you provide examples where a civilisation has improved those things without economic growth ? Quality of life certainly declined in the dark ages of Western Europe post the decline and fall of Rome compared to how well they were before the collapse. It took nearly 500 years and a nice warm climatic period (shhh, we aren't allowed to mention that now ) to help population growth.

And what did that population growth produce ?

Disaster, starvation ?

Well, not quite.



This continued - by the mid 19th century the life expectancy of an industrial worker in Britain as well as their income was much higher than a rural worker of the same period, and far higher than an equivalent worker in China up to the start of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Maybe economic growth isn't the problem... could it be distribution? Oh- Thymeclock- don't **** your pants, I'm not suggesting a liberal socialist plot to redistribute anything...

Oh please god no...

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Previous generations thought resources were limitless...

Agreed, some still do. Unfortunately some of them get elected sometimes. There is a big bahoo over shale gas at the moment - hundreds of years of reserves. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe looking after it this time would be better than just exploiting it as fast as possible as we have with oil ?

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

We are finding that resources aren't infinite... right? Then what follows? Not infinite population... right?

Which is why I was arguing how we could start the trend levelling off or moving the other way. Without starting to address why rapid population growth is happening where it is, and why people have so many children you will have to address another solution because it isn't going to slow.

So, what is the alternative method

A Die out perhaps, a cull ?

Is that any more realistic or fair ?

Who goes first ?

Who doesn't get saved ?

How is that decided ? A war perhaps ?

Are you sure 'we' would win it ?

Or perhaps enforced birth control which was suggested in 1969 ?

Again who, where, how ?

China did this for a long time and it caused huge social problems and many unwanted children, quite a few of whom were deliberately left to die.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Speaking of "development"... much more often than not, I find "developed" spots less desireable than they were before they got "improved".

Yep, see the comment above about previous generations and how they thought about areas needing to be 'developed'. Most of us see the folly of this but it still goes on.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Constant -- i.e. infinite growth on a finite planet = fail. Any questions?

On the basic point, nope.

But again, what is the solution - what specifically do you suggest we do to mitigate against this fail ?

Both you and I have kids, investments in the future. What do we need them to be doing, helping the population growth level off and civilisation to continue, or just sit in a Yurt consuming and contributing as little as possible ?



I'd rather A Jnr was contributing if its all the same to you