Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Edouardo]

I've never ever thought of actually labeling it as such, however, I must say that I find the opposite to be rather curious in that capitalists in the West all wring their hands with worry if GNP's-GDP's aren't reflecting positive numbers every quarter, thus indicating "growth"...

But how much of this on-going & never-ending "growth" is really ^ truly sustainable...? Everything on earth is constrained by the realities of finite=limited availability. Why not unbridled economic growth, as well...? It depends upon so very many contributing factors that the weakness-failure of even one can have a consequent negative impact upon all of the others...

[Lagayascienza]

LuckyR,can you tell us where you got the stats that predict a precipitous drop in world population after about 2100?

If it is so, then maybe a drop will be for the best. A new beginning. A fresh start. A realignment. Humanity has seen many set backs in its population growth. But we're still here more numerous than ever. Perhaps too numerous. It may not be comfortable, but maybe a reboot is what we need.

[Edouardo]

A pendulum swings both ways in everything, does it not...? So why not in this perspective, too...?

It's just the way of nature.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR,can you tell us where you got the stats that predict a precipitous drop in world population after about 2100?

If it is so, then maybe a drop will be for the best. A new beginning. A fresh start. A realignment. Humanity has seen many set backs in its population growth. But we're still here more numerous than ever. Perhaps too numerous. It may not be comfortable, but maybe a reboot is what we need.

Here's the article. Rather than just a grab of a graph or a quote from it, it bears reading the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... rowth.html

Though the graph is quite impressive (the way this "interactive" type article is set up, you have to scroll past the graph then scroll back to it to see the whole thing).

[Good_Egg]

There are two parts to this question.

One is about zero population growth.

The other is about whether - given a stable population - either zero growth or degrowth in the level of economic activity is something to aim for.

I'd argue that no it isn't - sustainability is what we need to aim for.

For example, phasing out plastics and metals - which use up irreplaceable oil and ores - and substituting forms of cellulose and carbon fibre that come from plants is a Good Thing. But those substitute materials may need more labour and more ingenuity to create. Such a transition grows the economy.

For another example, if plain wooden doors produced by simple machines are replaced by intricately carved wooden doors, and people feel their life enriched by the added beauty, then the economy grows without environmental cost.

Trade benefits the economy. We're still in the early stages of an internet-based economy....

I see a green economy as one in which using up irreplaceable resources becomes more and more expensive, but ingenuity and communication increases the proportion of our wants and needs met by each other's input. Sustainability.

[Lagayascienza]

I'm sorry I can't read the article, LuckyR. It behind a paywall - I'm not a subscriber to the New York Times. Maybe you could give us precis.

[Lagayascienza]

Ah I managed to find the article elsewhere. I'll read it.

[Sculptor1]

In these days of shortages, mass extinctions, global warming, and climate change, there are those who see our tightly-focussed insistence on (economic) growth — continuous growth — to be somewhat misguided. As our consumption has increased to a point where it outweighs available resources, isn't it empirically obvious that growth can't continue without end?

What are your thoughts? [Philosophically-political thoughts, of course.] Is degrowth a fantasy, or our only alternative?

It's all a bit of a blunt instrument (as my cancer surgeon said to me).
It all depends of what kind of growth.
The carbon footprint of the average Indian is 2 t per year compared to an American who burns 14 t per year. It's not all about carbon, but its a rough indicator of the amount of resources that the country is using. Most countries per capita is 1 tonne of less.
But there is more to understand. Brazil might only be around 2.15t/in 2022 and that number dropped from 2017, but set that against the slaughter of the Amazon and you have a different picture.

Now obviously growth in perpetuum is going to crash as Malthus said, but since he said it he has truned out to be wrong so far. ANd on the bright side, although the population is still increasing the rate of growth in human births has declined dramatically so much so that some countries are having to take step to mitigate the problems caused such as Russia, and North Korea.

I've read two books this year: both called "The Sixth Extinction", written 10 years apart there is no hint of a repreive for the world from one account to the other, and were the book to be re-written nothing significant could be reported to halt the process, excpet tinkering around the edges.

[Lagayascienza]

At current global fertility rates, world population is projected to reach a peak of around 10.4 billion in 2085 and then begin to decline as more people will begin to die than are being born. How precipitous the drop would be is hard to predict and will depend on many factors.

There are a a number of points that could be made in light of the above projection. The first is that it is only a projection. It does not take account of the fact that fertility rates are not set in stone. We can influence them. And fertility rates are not low or declining everywhere - in fact, high fertility rates in Africa are leading to rapid and unsustainable population growth there.

A second point is that, on a national level, and in the short to medium term, immigration of young people can help make up a shortfall in a country's birth rate. This is what happens in my own country. This works, but immigration needs to be carefully managed for social reasons.

Thirdly, economic growth due to increased productivity brought about, for example, by automation is likely to help support aging populations. A stable or lower population need not necessarily mean lower GDP or lower per capita income.

Fourthly, increases in life span and in the length of working life will go some way towards offsetting a declining workforce.

Fifthly, a somewhat lower world population would be a good thing environmentally. And, with less people, there would be more resources to go around if distribution were more equitable.

Lastly, a declining birth rate is not going to mean the end of humanity. It does not mean we are at risk of dying out. For that to have any chance of happening, our population would need to fall to a few tens of thousands against the backdrop of extreme or absolute global environmental degradation. Failing a meteor strike or other global apocalypse, our extinction would only happen if we allowed it to happen. That seems highly unlikely.

[Stoppelmann]

In these days of shortages, mass extinctions, global warming, and climate change, there are those who see our tightly-focussed insistence on (economic) growth — continuous growth — to be somewhat misguided. As our consumption has increased to a point where it outweighs available resources, isn't it empirically obvious that growth can't continue without end?

Degrowth is a new idea to me, but it does seem to make pragmatic sense, in today's world, or what is left of it. For those who (like me) are not very familiar with the concept, here's a link to the Wikipedia page.

And here's a very brief excerpt,

Degrowth theory's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. Degrowth theory argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective.

What are your thoughts? [Philosophically-political thoughts, of course.] Is degrowth a fantasy, or our only alternative?

Pursuing continuous economic growth without regard to environmental sustainability, social inequalities, and the well-being of individuals is going to lead to long-term negative consequences. If left unaddressed, these issues could indeed pose significant challenges to societal stability and well-being. The current economic model, focused on GDP growth as the primary measure of success, has been rightly criticized for not adequately addressing environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social inequities.

Degrowth advocates argue that a shift in priorities is necessary to ensure the planet's and its inhabitants' long-term survival and prosperity. The concept emphasises living within ecological limits and promoting environmentally sustainable practices. People seem to panic at the idea of reducing resource consumption, minimising waste, and transitioning towards a more circular economy. America's weakness, and because of its influence in the Western world, a threat to us all, is the failure to address social inequalities and promote well-being for all. This mentality seems to say, “if it don’t hurt you ain’t deserved it!”

I’m all for smaller-scale and community-based initiatives prioritising local needs and sustainability. The centralized industrialisation of farming, for example, based purely on yield or output, is killing the land, has put local farmers out of business, and if a shortage occurs, there is likely to be starvation. If crops fail or the distribution is interrupted, the present system is vulnerable. Medial coverage of the subject is driven by the corporations who are against it, and who paint a bleak picture of how it would look if they were no longer in charge.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are two parts to this question.

One is about zero population growth.

The other is about whether - given a stable population - either zero growth or degrowth in the level of economic activity is something to aim for.

I'd argue that no it isn't - sustainability is what we need to aim for.

But is it not reasonable to suggest that, given the current state of our world, degrowth (in all sectors/parts/aspects of our lives) is the only sustainable option? We currently take, use and consume hugely more than is sustainable. Our movement toward lessening all this consumption — degrowth — is our movement toward sustainability, n'est ce pas?

As for population, it is just one of the many aspects of our lives that must shrink/reduce/lessen. The overall focus should be on our consumption, I think. To lessen our consumption, we need fewer* humans, each consuming less than they currently do. Degrowth applies to every aspect of our lives, I think?



* — I.e. not "zero population growth", but degrowth.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pursuing continuous economic growth without regard to environmental sustainability, social inequalities, and the well-being of individuals is going to lead to long-term negative consequences. If left unaddressed, these issues could indeed pose significant challenges to societal stability and well-being. The current economic model, focused on GDP growth as the primary measure of success, has been rightly criticized for not adequately addressing environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social inequities.

All good stuff, with which I agree. But I am puzzled that your words seem to describe something that will happen in the future, if we don't do something about it. I think our situation is much more urgent than your words imply. Although perhaps I am misreading the tone of your words?

The "long-term negative consequences" are already here, I think. Today there are wildfires in Texas, and other places too. Other areas have droughts, but also floods. We are already facing shortages of various resources, fresh water not being the least of them, but also things like cobalt — Shortages flagged for EV materials lithium and cobalt — Reuters.

[Stoppelmann]

Pursuing continuous economic growth without regard to environmental sustainability, social inequalities, and the well-being of individuals is going to lead to long-term negative consequences. If left unaddressed, these issues could indeed pose significant challenges to societal stability and well-being. The current economic model, focused on GDP growth as the primary measure of success, has been rightly criticized for not adequately addressing environmental degradation, resource depletion, and social inequities.

All good stuff, with which I agree. But I am puzzled that your words seem to describe something that will happen in the future, if we don't do something about it. I think our situation is much more urgent than your words imply. Although perhaps I am misreading the tone of your words?don't

The "long-term negative consequences" are already here, I think. Today there are wildfires in Texas, and other places too. Other areas have droughts, but also floods. We are already facing shortages of various resources, fresh water not being the least of them, but also things like cobalt — Shortages flagged for EV materials lithium and cobalt — Reuters.

While I agree that there is a danger of imminent shortages, at present, people are still able to go to the shops and don't feel the pinch, which is why I formulated it the way I did.

[LuckyR]

There are two parts to this question.

One is about zero population growth.

The other is about whether - given a stable population - either zero growth or degrowth in the level of economic activity is something to aim for.

I'd argue that no it isn't - sustainability is what we need to aim for.

For example, phasing out plastics and metals - which use up irreplaceable oil and ores - and substituting forms of cellulose and carbon fibre that come from plants is a Good Thing. But those substitute materials may need more labour and more ingenuity to create. Such a transition grows the economy.

For another example, if plain wooden doors produced by simple machines are replaced by intricately carved wooden doors, and people feel their life enriched by the added beauty, then the economy grows without environmental cost.

Trade benefits the economy. We're still in the early stages of an internet-based economy....

I see a green economy as one in which using up irreplaceable resources becomes more and more expensive, but ingenuity and communication increases the proportion of our wants and needs met by each other's input. Sustainability.

Forget zero growth, using current trends (that is, without intentionally doing anything extra) the world human population is set to slow it's growth until a maximum at around 2085, then drop rapidly thereafter.

[LuckyR]

Ah I managed to find the article elsewhere. I'll read it.

Were you able to view the graph? Impressive, eh?