I’m not so sure. Piketty seems to have demonstrated that, outside of a few exceptional periods of time, nearly all economic growth has been the result of population growth. And those exceptional periods happened in the wake of crises which had the effect of either destroying stores of capital or creating a regime which effectively seized and reapportioned it (wars, the Great Depression, etc).
I don’t know about the robot factor. Are human labor capable robots going to have the same effect as population growth? I doubt it, for two reasons: first, the robots aren’t consumers and won’t spur any demand; and second, if they are displacing human workers, those displaced workers won’t be consumers either, because they won’t exist; or if they do exist, they will be poor consumers, at least in our current economic system.
Cormac
5959
Of course it was a disappointment! Nothing will save us. Even though Greta-momentum is cool, its not going to topple the tight mesh of industry & politics fast enough.
Ouch, this rings so true, but I like the other reply.
An “optimistic” look at some of the challenges presented by global climate change caused by humans:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/09/16/64-ramez-naam-on-renewable-energy-and-an-optimistic-future/
Thesis seems to be that the sheer economics of clean energy will win out over the long run?
Matt_W
5962
That’s interesting. For that to be true, the value of actually consumed goods per person would have to remain constant.
This is from his chapter 2 in Capital in the 21st Century:
The details are unimportant. The key point is that there is no historical example of a country at the world technological frontier whose growth in per capita output exceeded 1.5 percent over a lengthy period of time. If we look at the last few decades, we find even lower growth rates in the wealthiest countries: between 1990 and 2012, per capita output grew at a rate of 1.6 percent in Western Europe, 1.4 percent in North America, and 0.7 percent in Japan. 21 It is important to bear this reality in mind as I proceed, because many people think that growth ought to be at least 3 or 4 percent per year. As noted, both history and logic show this to be illusory.
So, not literally no growth outside of population growth, but no more than 1.5% in the best of times, and there probably attributable to technological change.
MikeJ
5964
But these are countries at the world technological frontier. So countries that are way behind can catch up, but countries at the frontier are already fairly developed, and they are gated by rate of technological change, which is historically around 1.5%.
We might find AI applications improve the 1.5%, but problems also tend to get harder as you move along, and if AI is so good that it radically increases the 1.5% number, we will probably have other problems.
Sure. I think the point is that either constraining population growth or actually reducing population — even if by passive means — will probably produce economic stagnation in mature, nominally capitalist countries. That stagnation will increase pressure on the non-wealthy at precisely the same time that their world is being turned upside down by the way-of-life changes demanded by climate change prevention and mitigation. People will grow to hate their capitalist society for impoverishing their lives, even if that hatred is at least somewhat unwarranted.
Chaplin
5966
This was a part of my second wave of “holy crap this is bad.” Even if…even IF the world somehow wakes up and does something that is somehow successful, there are just a freaking lot of people on the planet now. That freaking lot of people will beget more freaking lots of people. I worry that there is no possible good path out of this that doesn’t involve a science/motivation/whatever miracle AND a massive, fast reduction of the population.
Maybe tech saves us and people magically decide to back off having babies. It seems much more likely that war and starvation in some combination will come. Even more likely that they come after it is too late and the planet is ruined for humans for quite some time once the brutal math starts.
I feel like I am staring at the prisoner dilemma from back my college years. There is a good solution, but none of the motivational pathways lead that direction.
Scott123
5967
Population isn’t necessarily a big problem, in that as quality of life rises, birth rates decline. Old social norms of relying on many children to share the burden and provide for us in older age have fallen away, and instead we provide for ourselves. Though if climate change limits our ability to raise quality of life, that social norm can continue in those parts of the world.
There is an easy solution to this: rapid increase of carbon tax, which is just setting a true market price for fossil fuels. Even the most right-wing libertarian would have to accept it, except they’re hypocrites.
Gas $13 a gallon - I’d buy an EV tomorrow. Natural gas $50 per day to heat your house in winter - I’d switch to electric heater tomorrow. Electric utility company that currently runs coal power plants, facing a 50-fold increase in cost? They lobby with every ounce of strength they have to get new nuclear/solar/wind plant approvals tomorrow. All of these would be the free unregulated market at work.
Just a dream though; I think we’ll be struggling with climate change.
Skipper
5968
We’ve had a ton of things change: no world wars in our lifetime, huge medical advances, huge advances in food growing and lasting durability, great advances in water filtration and availability, and even the ability to aid others while simultaneously seeing and helping respond to their plight. It’s been an awesome time for mankind in our lifetime.
I’m an optimist though and I do feel like we all have the ability to do great things when times are dire. I’m hoping that remains true for climate change and humans being responsible caretakers for our planet. Hopefully. The number of humans won’t matter if the problem is put to task.
This is a way of saying I’m not poor. That sort of ‘solution’ will be hugely regressive.
I’m guessing that guy is about to have a very bad week.
Matt_W
5972
I’m not sure there’s a solution short of guillotines that isn’t regressive. The problem is caused by the stuff that everyone uses: food, fuel, heat, and power.
Sure, but let’s make food, fuel, heat and power dramatically more expensive and see what happens is just about the worst and most regressive approach I can imagine.
You could offset it with huge amounts of money. We are already doing that today with farmers.
That would be better, but at that point why not just have direct government action instead? Provide people with emission free transportation systems. Build new plants and force old ones to close. And so on.
Because that’s socialism?
