[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj]Exactly where did I assert that “economics pushes growth to support increasing populations”? I don’t even know what that sentence means. You just made that up. This is a recurring issue with you[/quote]
[quote=davelj]And the solution to this “problem” (if you accept that there is a problem, that is) is so simple: Stop reproducing.[/quote]
Obviously, we understood the “problem” to be different. The problem according to the video I posted(which led to response your about reproducing) was economists and politicians pushing for endless economic “growth” without an regard to its impossibility.
Since your solution to economists and politicians calling for the impossibility of endless economic growth(“problem”) was to stop reproducing indicated to me that you were blaming population growth for economists and politicians calling for the impossible. Meaning if population growth stopped then politicians and economists would stop calling for endless economic growth. To which I disagreed. Which led to this discussion.
So what was our assertion here? The video was about economic, not population growth.[/quote]
No, I don’t think we understand the problem in the video to be “different,” per se. I think there are TWO problems that are interrelated and we each addressed the other problem (so, it’s a bit of a semantics issue). You addressed the issue of “economists and politicians calling for the impossibility of economic growth” – which is a “problem” identified in the video. But, the bigger picture “problem” from the video is the economic growth itself… which cannot be separated from the issue of population growth, as population growth accounts for a large part of total economic growth on a global basis… which is the issue I addressed in my post.
If the vast majority of people on the planet decided to stop reproducing in order to save the environment (or whatever), then I suspect that most elected officials – who would have been elected by these “population reduction minded” folks – would not be pushing “growth for growth’s sake” (to paraphrase) – or at least not to the degree depicted in the video.
Personally, I’m agnostic regarding the actual arguments presented in the video. The producers of the video clearly don’t believe that technology/innovation will expand quickly enough to support a growing population on our planet in a comfortable/environmentally-friendly manner. This may or may not turn out to be the case. Humans are quite adaptable, but then again… the future is uncertain. (And I wouldn’t lose a night of sleep if someone persuaded me that the human race would be eradicated within 150 years, or whatever. I’m completely indifferent regarding the long-term prospects of the human race.)
What’s humorous about all this – again – and a point that you conspicuously didn’t address from my prior post… is that in your view (and I’ll post your view verbatim):
“Economics in general is a complete and utter pseudo-science with a little bit of real and a whole bunch of magical thinking nonsense dressed up as an actual science with some complex math. With any detractors labeled as heretics and burned at the stake for challenging dogma… It’s guess work with a wishing aspect.”
Assuming you’re correct… that video, which makes an argument based on the producers’ own understanding of economics… could be described precisely by your above paragraph. And thus its conclusions are just as specious as any others, as they are based on their own heaping helping of… “magical thinking.” Or is it that only the economic viewpoints YOU ascribe to are devoid of all “magical thinking”? That appears to be your argument… which would have to be classified as “magical thinking” in and of itself.
