Can the economy grow forever?
video description
Date: 2022-08-11
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 14
Recup
First off, to address the premise of this video. While the resources of the earth are finite, the resources of the solar system are so abundant that on the scale of humanity they are infinite, and every year the cost of potentially exploiting and extracting these resources drops significantly.
Secondly, most of the technologies to stop and even reverse climate change aren't ways we can't predict. They arleady exisit and are becoming more efficient every year. Today, renewables like solar are cheaper than fossil fuels even though fossil fuels benefit from huge subsidies. Not to mention nuclear that could already reliably power all of the human energy consumption for the next 500 years (and that's assuming there aren't new breakthroughs to make nuclear more efficient, which will likely be the case.
There are literally thousands of projects that are addressing all facets of the climate issue, from carbon capture to plastic-eating bacteria. This is possible thanks to our economic system that promotes innovation.
The de-growth movement is a rehash of the end of history theory, the idea that humans have already achieved their maximum potential and that trying to develop further would only be greedy and lead to collapse. This idea has been around since the industrial revolution and if we had listened to them then, life expectancy would still be about 45, we wouldn't have cars, planes, the internet or countless other things that improved our living standards.
If we give up on human potential now it means giving up on all the wonders the future has to offer. It means asserting this is the best we can do, because we stopped trying.
Climate change, deforestation, and inequality are all real and serious issues. But putting a stop to human progress isn't the solution. The solution is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, invest in more efficient infrastructure, build new nuclear reactors and fund it by enforcing the tax laws that already exist!
reply
First off, to address the premise of this video. While the resources of the earth are finite, the resources of the solar system are so abundant that on the scale of humanity they are infinite, and every year the cost of potentially exploiting and extracting these resources drops significantly.
Secondly, most of the technologies to stop and even reverse climate change aren't ways we can't predict. They arleady exisit and are becoming more efficient every year. Today, renewables like solar are cheaper than fossil fuels even though fossil fuels benefit from huge subsidies. Not to mention nuclear that could already reliably power all of the human energy consumption for the next 500 years (and that's assuming there aren't new breakthroughs to make nuclear more efficient, which will likely be the case.
There are literally thousands of projects that are addressing all facets of the climate issue, from carbon capture to plastic-eating bacteria. This is possible thanks to our economic system that promotes innovation.
The de-growth movement is a rehash of the end of history theory, the idea that humans have already achieved their maximum potential and that trying to develop further would only be greedy and lead to collapse. This idea has been around since the industrial revolution and if we had listened to them then, life expectancy would still be about 45, we wouldn't have cars, planes, the internet or countless other things that improved our living standards.
If we give up on human potential now it means giving up on all the wonders the future has to offer. It means asserting this is the best we can do, because we stopped trying.
Climate change, deforestation, and inequality are all real and serious issues. But putting a stop to human progress isn't the solution. The solution is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, invest in more efficient infrastructure, build new nuclear reactors and fund it by enforcing the tax laws that already exist!
reply
Fieldstuck
The entire premise of measuring economy by what gets sold on a market is already flawed from the outset. None of us ordinary people care how much profit is made off the things we use in our everyday lives. I care that I have a home, not that someone made money by renting me a home. I care that I have food, not that the food I eat provides marginal value for agribusiness.
The entire conversation around how we should structure our world is wholly dominated by capitalism, and everything is fed through the lens of the profit motive. That's the only reason anyone even considers the question of unlimited growth, rather than the most obvious human question of how do we get everyone what they need to live a good life? Unlimited growth is a fantasy of capitalism, bound as it is by a simple, immutable economic truth: the rate of profit declines over time.
The technological innovations alluded to in this video do make production more efficient, and therefore give humans more access to resources. But from the perspective of the capitalist, the only thing that matters is their own profit. They can make more profit in the short term with new technology, but as that technology permeates the market, the individual capitalist's edge disappears. They need to find new ways to grow just to stay abreast of the competition. Hence, growth is constantly necessary only for the capitalist enterprise to survive. The effects on the environment or the people living under this system are irrelevant in this framework.
So yes, we desperately need to reshape our entire productive system. It is fundamentally impossible for the capitalist mode of production to maintain growth without hollowing out the physical and social world in which it operates.
reply
The entire premise of measuring economy by what gets sold on a market is already flawed from the outset. None of us ordinary people care how much profit is made off the things we use in our everyday lives. I care that I have a home, not that someone made money by renting me a home. I care that I have food, not that the food I eat provides marginal value for agribusiness.
The entire conversation around how we should structure our world is wholly dominated by capitalism, and everything is fed through the lens of the profit motive. That's the only reason anyone even considers the question of unlimited growth, rather than the most obvious human question of how do we get everyone what they need to live a good life? Unlimited growth is a fantasy of capitalism, bound as it is by a simple, immutable economic truth: the rate of profit declines over time.
The technological innovations alluded to in this video do make production more efficient, and therefore give humans more access to resources. But from the perspective of the capitalist, the only thing that matters is their own profit. They can make more profit in the short term with new technology, but as that technology permeates the market, the individual capitalist's edge disappears. They need to find new ways to grow just to stay abreast of the competition. Hence, growth is constantly necessary only for the capitalist enterprise to survive. The effects on the environment or the people living under this system are irrelevant in this framework.
So yes, we desperately need to reshape our entire productive system. It is fundamentally impossible for the capitalist mode of production to maintain growth without hollowing out the physical and social world in which it operates.
reply
Ula
I believe even if a system of universal living wage system is established, it would raise too many questions, if only one wealthy coutnry in the world would have decided to set this system up, imagine the overpopulation these countries might see. We see this in minor scale in Europe today, where it is easier and more peaceful to live. Europe has signed agreements with Turkey just to keep a big amount of refugees away from their continent, but this has no use as everyone who lives in poorer and unsafer parts of the world wants to travel to Europe somehow, changing the demographics way fastly. What I'm meaning here is that this system should give up all cultural and political boundaries and applied as a universal one. The problem with today's growth economy is that at the beginning, everyone thought their part of 'the pie' will be bigger, but this hasn't turned out this way. Many people in some parts of the world today are crawling for some food, shelter, safety and clean water, while there are many people in the world gaining billions of dollars and using it for nothing, how fair is this, and how can you redistribute this wealth to achieve that goal. One solution could be a state of world, where all individuals have to abide its laws, so that others might be applicable (I am especially emphasizing tax evasion here, for our case) It is important to notice the inequality, how has it been grown around the world over time and how can it be prevented in the future. This was what we haven't discussed in the past.
reply
I believe even if a system of universal living wage system is established, it would raise too many questions, if only one wealthy coutnry in the world would have decided to set this system up, imagine the overpopulation these countries might see. We see this in minor scale in Europe today, where it is easier and more peaceful to live. Europe has signed agreements with Turkey just to keep a big amount of refugees away from their continent, but this has no use as everyone who lives in poorer and unsafer parts of the world wants to travel to Europe somehow, changing the demographics way fastly. What I'm meaning here is that this system should give up all cultural and political boundaries and applied as a universal one. The problem with today's growth economy is that at the beginning, everyone thought their part of 'the pie' will be bigger, but this hasn't turned out this way. Many people in some parts of the world today are crawling for some food, shelter, safety and clean water, while there are many people in the world gaining billions of dollars and using it for nothing, how fair is this, and how can you redistribute this wealth to achieve that goal. One solution could be a state of world, where all individuals have to abide its laws, so that others might be applicable (I am especially emphasizing tax evasion here, for our case) It is important to notice the inequality, how has it been grown around the world over time and how can it be prevented in the future. This was what we haven't discussed in the past.
reply
A. J.
I would argue growth isn't necessary for the needs of a civilization to be met but every non-growth system that has been tried failed utterly because people weren't motivated to actually contribute to to the economy. They made less stuff than they could have meaning there wasn't enough to go around. The failure in such systems is human psychology.
Growth-based economies take those undesirable tendencies in human psychology (like selfishness) and steer it toward making something other people want or need. Those who want more money need to make more stuff to sell to people. But it also incentivizes the best in humanity. If you want to be selfless and make available things people need as cheaply as possible you are still contributing to the growth of the economy. And if you run out of some essential resource either motivation can inspire the creative or intelligent to come up with alternatives to fill that need. Non-growth economies are dependent on people being their moral best. That's not a reality you can impose and it is one that can be shattered at any time by individual choices.
reply
I would argue growth isn't necessary for the needs of a civilization to be met but every non-growth system that has been tried failed utterly because people weren't motivated to actually contribute to to the economy. They made less stuff than they could have meaning there wasn't enough to go around. The failure in such systems is human psychology.
Growth-based economies take those undesirable tendencies in human psychology (like selfishness) and steer it toward making something other people want or need. Those who want more money need to make more stuff to sell to people. But it also incentivizes the best in humanity. If you want to be selfless and make available things people need as cheaply as possible you are still contributing to the growth of the economy. And if you run out of some essential resource either motivation can inspire the creative or intelligent to come up with alternatives to fill that need. Non-growth economies are dependent on people being their moral best. That's not a reality you can impose and it is one that can be shattered at any time by individual choices.
reply
Unindicted
I think it is absurd to assume that either -- or any -- approach will work long term. It is entirely possible that there is no solution. We don't have a model economy to study to derive reasonable assumptions about how ours should grow. We can't compare various mega-economies to see which methods work and which don't.
Saying that there must necessarily be solutions and we will find them as needed is teleological thinking, which is to say magical thinking.
To be a bit dark for a moment, we still haven't proven that civilization is a good idea. We've had it for a few thousand years or so, which is a wink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
Given that we don't know what the future will be like is the strongest argument for conservation I can think of. That's not to say that conservation and limiting growth will solve the probem. QED we can't know that. It is just about trying to prevent the case where we hit some critical scarcity. (disclaimer: I'm not saying conservatism, this isn't political)
Assuming that there won't be dark ages in the future is wasteful and reckless.
reply
I think it is absurd to assume that either -- or any -- approach will work long term. It is entirely possible that there is no solution. We don't have a model economy to study to derive reasonable assumptions about how ours should grow. We can't compare various mega-economies to see which methods work and which don't.
Saying that there must necessarily be solutions and we will find them as needed is teleological thinking, which is to say magical thinking.
To be a bit dark for a moment, we still haven't proven that civilization is a good idea. We've had it for a few thousand years or so, which is a wink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
Given that we don't know what the future will be like is the strongest argument for conservation I can think of. That's not to say that conservation and limiting growth will solve the probem. QED we can't know that. It is just about trying to prevent the case where we hit some critical scarcity. (disclaimer: I'm not saying conservatism, this isn't political)
Assuming that there won't be dark ages in the future is wasteful and reckless.
reply
Sir
I have to politely disagree with what was said between 1: 32 to 1: 53.
The phone isn't valuable per se. Nothing has inherent value. Not even existence itself. That is because value is an abstract concept created by us and maybe understood by other animal species. It does not exist outside our perception and imagination.
Each individual gives a certain amount of subjective value to things, including its life (Hence why Suicide is a thing) time, money (Explaining why salary work is a thing, and even smartphones.
If the amount of value a subject gives to, lets say, a phone that is selling at an Y amount of money, is X units of subjective value, if the subject values that Y amount of money less than X, it will buy the phone: Not because the phone has inherent value, but because that person values it more than the money the phone cost.
The consumer MAY care about the process that went to create the thing that it buys, but at least I don't. Same thing with all my relatives and almost all my University teachers and classmates.
Edit: Grammar.
reply
I have to politely disagree with what was said between 1: 32 to 1: 53.
The phone isn't valuable per se. Nothing has inherent value. Not even existence itself. That is because value is an abstract concept created by us and maybe understood by other animal species. It does not exist outside our perception and imagination.
Each individual gives a certain amount of subjective value to things, including its life (Hence why Suicide is a thing) time, money (Explaining why salary work is a thing, and even smartphones.
If the amount of value a subject gives to, lets say, a phone that is selling at an Y amount of money, is X units of subjective value, if the subject values that Y amount of money less than X, it will buy the phone: Not because the phone has inherent value, but because that person values it more than the money the phone cost.
The consumer MAY care about the process that went to create the thing that it buys, but at least I don't. Same thing with all my relatives and almost all my University teachers and classmates.
Edit: Grammar.
reply
education
There was some good moments in this video, but I'm disappointed that whenever infinite growth is discussed, it's merely seen as something abstract that some people want to achieve or just a thing that has its own will. The video never addresses the issue why infinite growth is really happening.
Surely if there constantly more people on earth and more products/services are created that leads to growth, but ultimately infinite (specifically economic) growth starts from the creation of majority of money (not cash, but zeros and ones) by banks granting loans. As money is created from thin air with interest, it automatically creates a situation where there is constantly more debt than there is actual money to pay off that debt. That leads to a situation where everyone needs to get more money to survive as the game basically forces a portion of its players to eventually run out of money.
reply
There was some good moments in this video, but I'm disappointed that whenever infinite growth is discussed, it's merely seen as something abstract that some people want to achieve or just a thing that has its own will. The video never addresses the issue why infinite growth is really happening.
Surely if there constantly more people on earth and more products/services are created that leads to growth, but ultimately infinite (specifically economic) growth starts from the creation of majority of money (not cash, but zeros and ones) by banks granting loans. As money is created from thin air with interest, it automatically creates a situation where there is constantly more debt than there is actual money to pay off that debt. That leads to a situation where everyone needs to get more money to survive as the game basically forces a portion of its players to eventually run out of money.
reply
ExplodingWolf
5: 07 that's a nice sentiment but let's think about this logically. Would that REALLY happen? In the world we live in, would that be ALLOWED to happen?
Not to mention, governments all across the world already run massive deficits to support their current standard of living, growth is the way you escape that. Of your economy expands as fast as the debt, or faster, you can spend more than you have, because you are better able to pay with each year. If you remove growth, massive cuts would have to be made that would depress the standard of living. The US government would have to scale back its welfare programs to a ridiculous degree at the current moment to accomplish such a feat, nevermind other nations.
reply
5: 07 that's a nice sentiment but let's think about this logically. Would that REALLY happen? In the world we live in, would that be ALLOWED to happen?
Not to mention, governments all across the world already run massive deficits to support their current standard of living, growth is the way you escape that. Of your economy expands as fast as the debt, or faster, you can spend more than you have, because you are better able to pay with each year. If you remove growth, massive cuts would have to be made that would depress the standard of living. The US government would have to scale back its welfare programs to a ridiculous degree at the current moment to accomplish such a feat, nevermind other nations.
reply
Dosadoodle
As someone who now buys less, I find my economic utility has gone up (I'm happier. In a sense, this means the economy has grown in my individual experience, because my utility is higher. But my contribution to GDP had gone down.
It is our perpetual obsession with using GDP that pigeonholes this conversation. We need to appreciate how bad GDP is as a metric. As one example, GDP could imply many people dying could be constructive for the economy, as long as we spent enough money in a hopeless endeavor to try to save those lives. GDP is purely about spend, not outcomes. It mistakes spending for happiness, and that is only partially true some of the time.
reply
As someone who now buys less, I find my economic utility has gone up (I'm happier. In a sense, this means the economy has grown in my individual experience, because my utility is higher. But my contribution to GDP had gone down.
It is our perpetual obsession with using GDP that pigeonholes this conversation. We need to appreciate how bad GDP is as a metric. As one example, GDP could imply many people dying could be constructive for the economy, as long as we spent enough money in a hopeless endeavor to try to save those lives. GDP is purely about spend, not outcomes. It mistakes spending for happiness, and that is only partially true some of the time.
reply
Raghav
One can only think about the meaning of life and can develop its understanding about mind, body and universe when the economy is rich and sufficient but the process of capitalism is a complete blockade on this beautiful process now even after a country is sufficiently rich, the people in it live like animals who kill their own curiosity and than stop learning
Therefore we need a country to rise and became a global superpower which has a very logical and nature loving culture and alongwith this that country should also be very strong
Like one and only India
reply
One can only think about the meaning of life and can develop its understanding about mind, body and universe when the economy is rich and sufficient but the process of capitalism is a complete blockade on this beautiful process now even after a country is sufficiently rich, the people in it live like animals who kill their own curiosity and than stop learning
Therefore we need a country to rise and became a global superpower which has a very logical and nature loving culture and alongwith this that country should also be very strong
Like one and only India
reply
happysmileyz
Infinite growth doesn't seem viable when the undertaking of creating new values (even intangible value like the cloud, AI, software, etc) ultimately relies on the consumption of hard, finite resources: humans to build and maintain those new values, food to feed humans, soil and livestock to make the food, lumber too build homes to house humans and infrastructure for those new values, water to quench humans and other livestock to create food, minerals to build computers to enable humans, oil to fuel vehicles for transportation of goods and humans, etc.
reply
Infinite growth doesn't seem viable when the undertaking of creating new values (even intangible value like the cloud, AI, software, etc) ultimately relies on the consumption of hard, finite resources: humans to build and maintain those new values, food to feed humans, soil and livestock to make the food, lumber too build homes to house humans and infrastructure for those new values, water to quench humans and other livestock to create food, minerals to build computers to enable humans, oil to fuel vehicles for transportation of goods and humans, etc.
reply
Kritamet
When people say about a goal of 0 carbon emission nation, I wonder if they just forget about the supply chains that relocation to or still exist in their foreign nations. Because then the campaign would mostly mean pushing the responsibility of handling climate change to the nations that rely on production and resource extraction industries and are less prosperous, meaning they will be less likely to be able to invest in tech to reduce the emission rate. In a lot of cases, I just find these campaigns very shallow.
reply
When people say about a goal of 0 carbon emission nation, I wonder if they just forget about the supply chains that relocation to or still exist in their foreign nations. Because then the campaign would mostly mean pushing the responsibility of handling climate change to the nations that rely on production and resource extraction industries and are less prosperous, meaning they will be less likely to be able to invest in tech to reduce the emission rate. In a lot of cases, I just find these campaigns very shallow.
reply
Nhan
Post-growth economy is literally a nice way to mask communism. Like they said in the video, theoretically, it sounds awesome. But realistically, it sucks. Plus, not every or even most countries in the world are not developed enough to shift. Global warming is a global problem but we cant just ask these countries to stop growing. This may sound far fetch but the only realistic way to grow the economy forever is to develop technology enough to find and terraform another planet similar to Earth.
reply
Post-growth economy is literally a nice way to mask communism. Like they said in the video, theoretically, it sounds awesome. But realistically, it sucks. Plus, not every or even most countries in the world are not developed enough to shift. Global warming is a global problem but we cant just ask these countries to stop growing. This may sound far fetch but the only realistic way to grow the economy forever is to develop technology enough to find and terraform another planet similar to Earth.
reply
Gage
I enjoyed this video, but it left out some important details. First, it limits humans to one planet and its reasoning is done on the basis we ll never colonize other planets or harvest resources from asteroids. Second, it makes the assumption that all products have to require resources. While this is true in most cases, many products are becoming digital. For example, micro transactions in video games. No physical resources are used to create the in-game currency
reply
I enjoyed this video, but it left out some important details. First, it limits humans to one planet and its reasoning is done on the basis we ll never colonize other planets or harvest resources from asteroids. Second, it makes the assumption that all products have to require resources. While this is true in most cases, many products are becoming digital. For example, micro transactions in video games. No physical resources are used to create the in-game currency
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
