/sci/ - Science & Math

[ego No.3077620]

Shouldn't we tone down a bit on our consumption?

[Anonymous No.3077625]

>>3077620

This is an extremely vague question.

[ego No.3077631]

>>3077625
Shouldn't we consume less, due to resource being extremely important for our survival?

[Anonymous No.3077632]

>>3077620
consumption of the resources of our planet?

[Anonymous No.3077636]

>>3077631

Define resources. Ex: Knowledge, Labor, Capital, Natural, Manmade, etc.

[Anonymous No.3077637]

Of course we should. Unfortunately, our economy and therefore the well-being of most people in our society depends, better say: is entirely based, on EVERINCREASING growth.

That shit needs to change.

[Anonymous No.3077642]

>>3077637

The amount of resources used is independent of growth.

[Anonymous No.3077648]

>>3077642
wat

[Anonymous No.3077649]

No. I'm bulking.

[Anonymous No.3077651]

>>3077648

The amount of resources use is a function of their cost. Growth is a function of savings/investment (which is often used as a proxy for technical growth).

[ego No.3077652]

>>3077636
>>3077637
The most common resources. I won't list them all but the ones we require the most to survive. Also on terms of waste and pollution.

>>3077637
Is there nothing humanity can do to decrease consumption, even if just a little?

[Anonymous No.3077656]

>>3077651
.. AND a function of the amount of people who use / need said resources.

[Anonymous No.3077658]

I think you all should lower your consumption. I will continue to consume as much as I like.

[Anonymous No.3077661]

>>3077656

True, but what's your point?

[Anonymous No.3077664]

Should we tone down our consumption? Yes of course.but that pictures is only a small one in the collage of the universe. You got to look at the big picture man before you start focusing.

First fully learn how to use your brain bro. Look up NLP, Timothy leary's circuit theory, buddhism...

Just learn what it really means to control your reality, actions, and states of mind.

Then spread this, along with non-violence, consumptions reduction, more appreciation in space travel, life longevity, psychology, agriculture...

Human knowledge is not only growing exponentially, but the rate at which it is growing grows exponentially. We are perhaps doomed to success, as our efforts as a whole humanity have the power of the universe behind us, entropy unfolding into gods infinity.

[Anonymous No.3077670]

>>3077652

So, do we consume too much food? No. That's all you need to survive, and no, we don't consume too much food. There's enough food to feed the entire world multiple times. I don't understand how consuming too much food is inherently bad.

The only way to prevent 'over consumption' is to degrade economic prosperity.

[Anonymous No.3077671]

>>3077661
that an economy that is entirely based on growth will not work out in the end..

[Anonymous No.3077676]

>>3077671

Expand on your argument.

[Anonymous No.3077728]

>>3077676
Oh lord .. I should be on my way to work.

Anyway.

The economic growth is tied to a certain advancement and consumption - an evergrowing one. It isn't enough to keep a certain level of production, it isn't even enough to grow at a certain level (thank you finance market) - an economy needs to grow at least by a certain projected, speculated value. If that's not the case, the market goes apeshit. This planet has a finite (albeit large, which is again a relative thing) amount of natural resources - oil, coal, rare earths, you name it - that will at some point be gone. A growing world population will consume at a faster rate with every new period. Luckily, world population growth is slowly, but steadily decreasing (1.2% or so .. which is still too much).

My point in short. An economy based on an evergrowing consumption will never be sustainable for a longer period.

[Anonymous No.3077737]

>>3077728
I might add here that you need to be aware of exponential growth, only then will you realize that the consumption of a given period will always be greater than the total consumption of the complete past history - the time period in which the last remnant of a finite resource is consumed will be quite short in relation to the whole history of said consumption.

Gotta go now, group meeting.

[Anonymous No.3077771]

>>3077728

You're basically arguing that economic growth doesn't have a balanced growth path. I can tell you nearly all Economic growth theories have a balanced growth path. So, in terms of current Economic theory, you're wrong.

>It isn't enough to keep a certain level of production, it isn't even enough to grow at a certain level (thank you finance market) - an economy needs to grow at least by a certain projected, speculated value. If that's not the case, the market goes apeshit.

Actually, all Economic growth theories predict that an industrialized economy should grow at a constant rate (balanced growth path). That doesn't mean in the short run an Economy can not fluctuate in output. This is when 'the market goes apeshit', but it has nothing to do with long-run economic growth in and of itself. However, responses to these short-run issues can generate negative effects on long-run growth.

>This planet has a finite (albeit large, which is again a relative thing) amount of natural resources - oil, coal, rare earths, you name it - that will at some point be gone.

You are right. And currently no Economic growth theory accurately accounts for this. We generally just say 'Human ingenuity will solve it', whatever that means.

>A growing world population will consume at a faster rate with every new period. Luckily, world population growth is slowly, but steadily decreasing (1.2% or so .. which is still too much).

A growing world population will only consume what can be produced, the issue is how to produce enough to satisfy the growing population, which is more development economics rather than growth, but closely related.

[Anonymous No.3077777]

>>3077737

No theory of economic growth theory ever assumes a exponential growth path, because it's unsustainable, so we just don't deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3077789]

More consumption means more demand for better products, which means more demand for advancement, which means more scientific advancement. The people saying "consume less" are a bunch of idiots who are trying to make all of us pay for what they think are our "sins against Gaia/mother nature/whatever."

It's just them trying to force their religion down all our throats and get in the way of human advancement.

[Anonymous No.3077790]

No.
There are plenty of planets where this one came from.
Having a resource crisis here will speed the rate of space colonisation, so I say waste away

[Anonymous No.3077806]

> run out of resources

This will simply never happen. It's ridiculous. The universe is a massive place, the idea that we could use up all the resources in it is so mind bogglingly stupid that people suggesting it really shouldn't be taken seriously.

What people call "running out" is really just using up the local supply. We can easily find more if the market demands it, or we can come up with something new if that's more profitable. Even in the most ridiculous "peak oil" scenario that all the doomsayers love to throw around, even if petroleum were to just suddenly run out this very instant, it would barely be a hiccup. It would just create such massive demand for something to replace it or for an alternate source that we would have a replacement in a year tops.

All the idiots proclaiming that the sky is falling are completely ignoring that even if it actually becomes an issue, the market will just correct for it.

[Anonymous No.3077809]

>>3077737
>>3077728

I'm tired and heading out. If you're interested in this more message me at anon05011987 on AIM/Yahoo/MSN.

Also, more about the balanced growth path. As part of graduate economic exams, we have to draw phase diagrams and we're often asked to ONLY draw the stable arms. So, the entire analysis of economic growth and finite resources could be self-confirmation bias. I don't think so entirely, but it's good to question your methods and motives from time to time.

[Anonymous No.3077810]

>>3077806
>free market will fix everything
just like the free market fixed the housing market after the meltdown OH WAIT

[Anonymous No.3077813]

>>3077806
>>3077810

Please, for the love of God, don't get into a Free-Market debate.... It's already 4AM, and I don't wanna get suckered into this....

[Anonymous No.3077814]

>>3077810
It was excessive government attempts to control the market that created the problem in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3077817]

>Shouldn't we tone down our use of whale oil?

No, we're in a temporary paradigm, and we're headed for the stars, so shut the fuck up and stay out of our way, hippies

[Anonymous No.3077819]

>>3077806
>Oil runs out

How are you going to replace that? Transportation runs on oil, food is not being delivered to consumers, and you are fat and juicy...

[Anonymous No.3077825]

>>3077819

To be completely honest, the answer any Economist will give you is either 'Entrepreneurship' or 'Human ingenuity'

[Anonymous No.3077827]

>>3077814
It's cartels as well as government fuckassery that's causing us to consume all our oil and resources, that doesn't matter one fucking bit, even if the free market does end up fixing everything its going to take a long time and cause a devastating amount of damage.

[Anonymous No.3077830]

>>3077814
No, the government had no control, the banks were given money by making bad loans that were backed by the Federal Reserve.

They earned money for every bad loan they made.

There is no control there, asshole.

[Anonymous No.3077840]

the answer is war, less lives = less consumption.

[Anonymous No.3077844]

>>3077840
"Human ingenuity" wins.

[Anonymous No.3077868]

>mfw when everybody in this thread doesn't think an elite group of humans already have a firm control of resources with the goal of galactic colonization

[Anonymous No.3077878]

>>3077868
proof else your a faggot

[Anonymous No.3077894]

>>3077878
>forgot when NATO invaded two of the most oil-rich countries and nobody said a word

[Anonymous No.3077904]

>>3077894
It was funny when Qaddafis kids were killed by the Americans.

[Anonymous No.3077956]

>>3077771
You just walked in circles. That was his entire point. The current economic system doesn't account for the fact that it is working in an entirely finite system. Hence the need for reduced consumption, because exponential growth can't work long term in the said finite system.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3077969]

>>3077620
Consumption does not matter, sustainability matters. We could keep our level of consumption if we tone down on the planned obsolescence, make full use of plasma gasification technology for recycling ALL waste, and some extra deep sea and asteroid mining for our extra materials.

[ego No.3077996]

>>3077868
>mfw 'control'