'The End of Growth' - book by Richard Heinberg

Citizen

Citizen

Member
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Growth-Adapting-Economic/dp/0865716951

Just wondering if anyone on the forum has also read this powerful book.

As the title suggests, the basic premise of the book is that since the industrial age all economies, and indeed human progress have been based upon an inherent concept of necessary growth. Heinberg asserts that this idea is non-compatible with a world that is now facing the limits of finite natural resources and exponential personal and sovereign debt.

Given these immutable constraints, the world is in for a radical re-adjustment in which the concept of growth will necessarily be replaced with decline - with varying degrees of sustainability.

Thats the basic gist of it, although Heinberg makes his case in far more reasoned and eloquent terms. :cool:

Just keen to hear some thoughts from others that have read it, or perhaps might be interested in giving it a look. The consequences of the book's theory are so far-reaching that anyone with a passing interest with economics should be interested.
 
Growth needs to be replaced with sustainability, innovation and quality of life.
The problem is the economic system we've been using for the past 250 years was strongly growth focused because it came in an age when cities did not have running sewerage systems. But that time has passed and "growth" isn't as critical to the western world as it once was.
 
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html

Recent research supports the conclusions of a controversial environmental study released 40 years ago: The world is on track for disaster. So says Australian physicist Graham Turner, who revisited perhaps the most groundbreaking academic work of the 1970s,The Limits to Growth.

Written by MIT researchers for an international think tank, the Club of Rome, the study used computers to model several possible future scenarios. The business-as-usual scenario estimated that if human beings continued to consume more than nature was capable of providing, global economic collapse and precipitous population decline could occur by 2030.

However, the study also noted that unlimited economic growth was possible, if governments forged policies and invested in technologies to regulate the expansion of humanity's ecological footprint. Prominent economists disagreed with the report's methodology and conclusions. Yale's Henry Wallich opposed active intervention, declaring that limiting economic growth too soon would be "consigning billions to permanent poverty."

Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. "There is a very clear warning bell being rung here," he says. "We are not on a sustainable trajectory."

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html#ixzz2hqpcaiz1
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Click to expand...

Futurism-Got-Corn-graph-631-thumb.jpg

Source: Smithsonian Institute
 
However, the study also noted that unlimited economic growth was possible, if governments forged policies and invested in technologies to regulate the expansion of humanity's ecological footprint. Prominent economists disagreed with the report's methodology and conclusions. Yale's Henry Wallich opposed active intervention, declaring that limiting economic growth too soon would be "consigning billions to permanent poverty."
Click to expand...

I am inclined to believe that unlimited economic growth might not be possible. It is not possible because our economic is a function of energy and environment (e.g. oil). Too much economic growth means a scarify of the environment and accelerate the depletion of rare earth (i.e. not worth the energy investment to extract resources). At present, the economic growth we seen is advanced by debt. Population growth is also possible because of debt. Even so, there are plus and minus to debt. Without the use of debt, we might not see the prosperity we seen today. As we all know our debt level is reaching a level which is scary unsustainable, that's why i think this generation is living in a peak prosperity.
 
Certainly familiar with Richard Heinberg's work. A very intelligent man. I personally do subscribe to many of his views.

Others with interesting things to say on the subject include;

Dmitry Orlov, James Howard Kunstler, Nicole Foss.

I am going to a presentation next weekend by an economist who is a fellow with the Post Carbon Institute - of which Heinberg is part of.
 
Hmm...I figured that Heinberg's ideas might find some resonance in these parts.

Thank you all for you contribution to this thread - especially the information posted by Julie W.

Yes, i own a copy of Dmitry Orlovs excellent book 'Reinventing Collapse' - I highly recommend it - vey fascinating and readable comparison of the fall of theSoviet Union, and ....erm...what lies ahead for the US.

I'll be sure to check out some of those other authors too. I'm still reasonably new to this information, and am being careful to avoid sensationalist 'sky is falling' type writing.

I found Heinberg's approach to be suitably grim, but reasoned and without hyperbole. I hope to find more sober, researched perspectives like his.
 
Here's a very interesting perspective, and it's worth reading the whole argument. It deals with science, economics and the curtain of illusion.


The Illusion of Freedom - Democracy, Religion, Science and Propaganda
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42677.html

Science is also based on a system of beliefs, though unlike Religious beliefs, scientific beliefs are tested, replicated and peer reviewed through use of of the scientific method. But even here, talk long enough with a self professed non religious scientist and they too will meander towards a belief system that has its basis in myths, i.e. that approx 90% of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter, something that they cannot test for or see so outside of the scientific method.

After all a scientists brain is the same as any other persons brain, and in some ways resembles more closely those of religious fanatics for they are able to close their minds off to the consequences of their actions in terms of the potential for harm to humanity such as nuclear weapons, and more recently genetic engineering, just as the most fervent religious believers tend to have a total loss of the sense of reality as they await Armageddon and the day of judgement so that they can begin their after lives for eternity.
Click to expand...

and Economics:

Science is also based on a system of beliefs, though unlike Religious beliefs, scientific beliefs are tested, replicated and peer reviewed through use of of the scientific method. But even here, talk long enough with a self professed non religious scientist and they too will meander towards a belief system that has its basis in myths, i.e. that approx 90% of the universe is made of dark energy and dark matter, something that they cannot test for or see so outside of the scientific method.

After all a scientists brain is the same as any other persons brain, and in some ways resembles more closely those of religious fanatics for they are able to close their minds off to the consequences of their actions in terms of the potential for harm to humanity such as nuclear weapons, and more recently genetic engineering, just as the most fervent religious believers tend to have a total loss of the sense of reality as they await Armageddon and the day of judgement so that they can begin their after lives for eternity.
Click to expand...

and
Humans are the only animal that does not live in the present, because we recognise that we are going die, so we give up the present to cope with knowledge that we will one day die by immersing ourselves in a manufactured past that implies we could live beyond death so that we forget about the present. Not only that but religion fools us into thinking that our bodies are disposable i.e. we tend to view body parts in terms of possessions - my hands, my legs, my eyes, my body rather than all being me. Not only that but religion and society puts us on a conveyor belt that is focused on some future reward, such as wealth, power or a place in heaven, whilst the present is ignored right upto the point we arrive at our end.
Click to expand...
 
A couple of questions:

How does this information effect the way you plan for the future? I'll understand that this is a somewhat personal question, but these issues have vast repercussions for all of us - and rightfully has me reconsidering many aspects of my life.

Secondly...

Can anyone suggest some well-reasoned and substantiated counter-perspectives to Heinberg's hypothesis? Although the strength of his argument resonated with me strongly, I feel it best to always temper ones view with valid counterpoints, lest be become dogmatic about a particular view.


Thank you in advance.
 
While not having read the book I think that the book is missing part of it's title > In the west . Surely there is still a great deal of economic growth to be had for the vast majority of the Earths population in China , India, Africa etc. To say that we are at the end of the limits of economic growth is a little Eurocentric.

You might like a read of The computer that printed out W*o*l*f or Bjorn Lomborgs Environmental Alarmism then and now
PDF here
http://lomborg.com/sites/default/files/Art BL 2012-06-20 Alarmism Foreign Affairs.pdf

I cant find a non paywalled version of Carl Keysons Wolf at the moment but both give a good insight into the way the likes of the Club of Romes report mentioned above have shaped the current govt policy's worldwide and given rise to the publics perception that there is an immediate urgencey that needs to be dealt with when time and time again all the gloomy predictions have proven to be wrong.
 
The major question I have is what is defined as "growth" and what sort of "growth" is ending"?

Growth in energy consumption per capita? No problem. There is a surfeit of energy potentially available.
Growth in food consumption per capita? No problem. There is a surfeit of potentially arable land and even if there isn't, there's a surfeit of potential biomass production that can be turned into human food and existing diets can readily change based on the trade-offs people are willing to make.
Growth in quality of life? Depends on what you mean by "quality"?
Growth in innovation? There's no limit to this.
Growth in materials use per capita? There's no shortage of "materials". Different ones will become cheaper or more expensive just like they always have. New materials are being developed and produced economically every year. Substitution based on price is a key driver.

Is there a time cost to transition to something radically different? Of course. Old capital stock is made obsolete and people have to spend time to make new capital stock.
Is there a risk to changes and innovation not taking place? Of course. Particularly when central planners try to predict "solutions" and restrict various avenues through regulation and stifling of innovation.
 
Let's not forget Thomas Malthus's work lat 18th century work on the problem of population.
He was quite right in his prediction but he could not be aware of the future changes in technology and agriculture. These served to push his predictions out of the probable into the not likely. That being said, there are still limits to growth and rates of saturation.

We are an energy hungry life form but oil and gas are not the only forms of energy available to us both now and in the future.
 
Board silver and Goanna, Heinberg addresses both the themes of transition (and the Transition Movement) and the prospects of alternative energy sources quite comprehensively in his book.

Regarding the latter, he focuses on the matter of EROI as a measurement of a fuel sources value - Energy Return On Investment.

With regards to the various forms of renewable energy we have available, none compare favourably with coal or oil in terms of the energy expended to derive energy from those sources.

Basically a lot of energy has to be expended for each unit of energy derived from those sources - much more than with conventional non-renewable sources. He also factors in potential improvements for efficiency with these newer sources in his calculations.

On the subject of transition, he discusses the movement in some depth, and this is an area that I will be investigating further.
 
Nuclear.

As seductive as the EROI concept is, it ignores whether the energy is produced is in a form and location that we actually want it. The move towards electricity for example changes the relevance/merit order of different forms of energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top