We can sort of most of the world's problems by killing half the population - this was feasible even to Genghis Khan, though he butchered only 20% or so of his known world. The most recent experiments in this were around Rwanda where food is in short supply. I would guess we will crack desalination to under 30 cents a cubic metre and less eventually. And so on. What we lack is a model for decent living under a whole swamp of modelling that discounts this. Much would be about how we create, direct and monitor "capital" - if this was genuinely up for grabs. Strange issues like "trust" need to be gripped.
On 21 Jan, 16:03, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > That is a very important aspect and one that deserves in depth > examination, not that research had never been conducted before. I > guess it would follow that exponential population growth leads to > depletion of available resources. I would hope that hydroponics and > other alternative growing methods will ultimately forestall the limits > on food production. However, the demand for animal protein may > decrease the acreage available for farming as the land becomes the > food resource for the animals. Oil is transiting over to solar and > wind. Water is a commodity that already seems to be in short supply, > clean water that is. Somehow I feel the ingenuity of science will > prevail and populations will decrease in balance with growth, whether > by natural cause or man made calamity. > > I would pay some attention to the criticisms of your "Limits to > Growth" reference. > Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of > irresponsible nonsense" in a Newsweek editorial dated March 13, 1972. > Wallich's main complaints are that the book was published as a > publicity stunt with great fanfare at the Smithsonian in Washington, > and that there was insufficient evidence for many of the variables > used in the model. > Robert M. Solow from MIT, complained about the weak base of data on > which The Limits to Growths predictions were made. > Dr. Allen Kneese and Dr. Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future > (RFF) stated: > "The authors load their case by letting some things grow > exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow > exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources > and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in > discrete increments." > > It should be noted, however, that the authors of the report accepted > that the then-known resources of minerals and energy could, and would, > grow in the future, and consumption growth rates could also decline. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth#Criticism > > On Jan 21, 8:02 am, Growthbuster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Few are talking about the most basic problem with our current economic > > system: it is intent on having more throughput year over year, yet it > > exists in a finite environment. The resources it consumes are not > > unlimited. I think one of the prime reasons for such a big meltdown > > this time is that we really are up against the "limits to growth." > > That's in quotes because you ought to Google that phrase. Think peak > > oil, peak food, peak water and perhaps now peak money! > > > Dave Gardner > > Producer/Director > > Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
