Is there an ecological limit to economic growth?

Question

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by David Letellier, 28, Berlin, Germany.

To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blog:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/10221.page

Answer 1

Yes. The limit depends on many circumstances. Its commonly believed that the amount of resources define the limit but technology advance, efficient use of resources, use of regenerating resources, exploration (e.g. into space) can resolve that problem. Unfortunately the economists are mostly focusing on getting profits and using resources until they vanish. They seem that they don't like to think about costly technology advance or fast changes in industry. Most economist perceive technology advance as unprofitable because science require money investment (they don't like word of unprofitable). Also the idea to change profitable industry into developed and safe to environment by huge costs just don't fit into their heads. The way most of them think is restricted to few words: "profit and small costs". The environment have to wait... They will worry when it will be too late. I don't say there are no smart economist that knows and care about what is going on but I am sure that even now new young economists are taught to care first about profit and then later by their own to worry about whole consequences.

Answer 2

David,
You could go either way with this and all points in between. Economic growth is probably not linked to the ecology.. It only appears to be. For example, to help a community grow with economic wealth a power plant is built. The little town booms into an economic power house and suddenly there was not enough electricity. As good as the economy was the coal burning power plant had destroyed the beauty of the little town as the big city was coated in black tar everywhere and the smoke was in everybody's lungs and the cancer rate was sky high. These folks did not want to build another electric factory that burned coal. So, they did something amazing. They tore down the old coal factory and built a clean burning nuke. Now the tar is gone and the community is thriving better than ever. Something real special happened the very next year. A flock of Canada geese, about two thousand in all flew into town. When migration time came they stayed along with several other species of wild animals and even plants. Old town records reviled that all these living thing used to thrive in that town in time long past. So did the ecology hit a limit or did it not recover with a renewed economical serge?

Answer 3

No. coz we can combine economic growth with growth to the environment. though, for years we as humans have been destroying the environment. But there are ways and means that can combine nature and mens creation.

The difference before and now is that we as humans have the choice and technology of acting on that choice. What I mean is that the choice of buying an environmental lightbulb than buying the ordinary one. Or using solar panels to give power to your heater or stuff like that.

Technology has brought many changes that it may be both destructive and constructive. With the limited space, we now see vertical cities or what we call high rise condominiums. Cars that dont run in the traditional fossil fuels. People made these choices and opted to be friendly towards the environment.

For me, the more economically wealthy a person is, the more he/she has the responsibility towards the environment. But having an economy built on destroying the environment will fail. But an economy that respects the environment, though not very cheap to do, can witstand time. (eg Germany, Finland, Netherlands, etc.)

Answer 4

Obviously, yes. There could be so much economic growth that we couldn't fit it on the planet, much less feed everyone.

A better formulation of this would be, how much can we harm the ecological system of the Earth before this system changes in a way that is a cataclyism to human 'civilization'.

The conventional American answer to this question is, let's just do what we want and let nature sort it out. The counterculture answer to this is, minimize our effects wherever possible.

The 'supreme' court made the decision which would be counter and which would be conventional, in the year 2000.

Answer 5

There is an ecological limit to economic growth.

This is not hard to follow and only requires a basic working knowledge of chemistry and economics.

On the economics side, the basic driver of our economy is energy - namely the combustion of fossil fuels (carbon based). We combust these fuels and emit CO2 into the atmosphere...while some carbon ends up back into the carbon cycle here on earth, a large part of it is emitted into the atmosphere and forever lost. So we are in the midst of the decarbonification of our planet.

This is just one example, there are numerous examples that range from mineral issues to water issues. If y'all think that the almighty buck is more powerful than nature, you've never been through a hurricane.

Answer 6

No, not really. There are problems as we go along, but there are also solutions. And people make money on the solutions. The best example I can think of off hand is the use of recycled materials. This is twice-found money: once in reducing the waste, and again in the profit for the product manufactured. Actually, it can be three times, as there are government programs of various kinds around the entire recycling process, and you might pick up a grant or loan to get your manufacturing started.

Yes, technology causes certain kinds of waste and pollution. But the answer is not to limit technology, but to use technology to solve the problems.

P.S. Am, capitalism is not the cause of waste and destruction. Non-productive bureaucracy is the real problem. Or at least the biggest one.

Answer 7

without following the links and investing alot of time into looking into a group I do not belong to or the blogs of others, or long back and forth discussions the answer is unequivicably yes. Ecomic growth is dependent upon the natural resources that are available to it. There is an ecology to natural resources that either builds it up or depletes it. As we use the resources up we tamper with ecology. Continuing to do so eventually makes different resources go from plentiful to scare and then non-existant. As that imbalance continues more resources dissappear and will until there is nothing left upon which to base an economic growth.

Answer 8

Not at all, certainly economics is assuring and helpfull to science and life expansion, creating new expressions and forms of intelligence, new boundaries to common stuff and even grammar. Ecology is actually based on the account nature makes out of science and life, therefore it actually supports growth and enhancement, the real elements and perceptions of economy. It is even found economy fulfills the search of truth in ecology. The answer is no, because growth is natural in fulfillment and life itself as a result of effort and planning. The only fret would be anxiety in economy, yet it does not cause suffer in math, so it does not suffice to pervade inflation or sudden exploit of species.

Answer 9

Ecological balance is must for sustained economic growth. Accumulation at one side means depletion on the other side. Indiscriminate and limitless economic growth means total depletion of the basic resources. Natural ecological arrangements result in very large real economic savings to humans. Humans can not afford to forgo with such economic savings and life supporting natural arrangements. Man is too much anxious to activate all the non living things and inactivate the living ones to put them at heaven like comfort and permanent rest.

Answer 10

I would well imagine that there is a limit; in fact China embraced Great Britton due to the fact that the English invented fertilizers to increase the capacity of the land to produce; therefore, technology was then is now an answer and a solution.