markbahner’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Economic predictions and "common sense"

  Economists make their predictions by disconnecting human activity from the eco-sphere.  That's why they come up with these overly rosy predictions of continued economic growth.

  Actually, 99% of economists underestimate the likely growth in the 21st century.  Averaged over the century, the world economy will likely grow by over 7 percent per year (adjusted for inflation).  Most of the growth over 7 percent per year will probably come after 2030, however.  This is because most economists don't appreciate the likely economic impacts of computers equaling and then vastly exceeding the capabilities of the human mind.

  Let's inject a little common sense into this picture.  At the present rate of fishing, there will be nothing left within fifty years.  That means a lot of people are going to go hungry.

  No, that's wrong on several accounts.  Most importantly, food from the sea is not presently a signficant source of calories for homosapiens.  Worldwide, approximately 5 percent of protein consumed by humans comes from fish.

  But global warming will lead to bigger more extended droughts which means more land, especially in the tropics is going to turn from productive farmland into desert.

  What productive farmland in the tropics do you think will turn into desert?

  There was one economist who did see the connections -  Malthus.  He didn't take into account technological change so he has been proven wrong for the last two hundred years.

  Yes, he's been proven wrong.  So why mention him?

  The question is, can technology keep producing this miracle of increasing productivity?  The common sense answer is no.

  No, the commonsense answer is "yes."  You've just noted that Malthus has been wrong for more than 200 years.  The commonsense conclusion is that he'll be wrong for the next 200 years also.  Especially considering the current trends in food production, medicine, and computers.  (Not to mention energy technologies such as photovoltaics.)

  Mark Bahner

  On Economists cannot predict the future posted 1 year, 10 months ago 69 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ho, ho, ho!

  Another great freemarketeerian analysis!  God's own freedom, freeing corporate citizens from any and all regulation will save us all. Abolish government, if you want representation become a shareholder.  That's the new freedom.

  I guess I should be charitable right before Christmas, but it's always kinda funny to me how religious people go ballistic, and say completely loony things, when their religious beliefs are confronted with conflicting scientific evidence.

  Mark Bahner

  On Economists cannot predict the future posted 1 year, 11 months ago 69 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Food and resources vs population

  I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that food production (and availabilty of other resources) will increase in proportion to population.

  No...food production and availability of other resources will increase at a rate greater than population, such that the ~9 billion of ~2050 will have fewer people who are inadequately fed, housed, clothed, etc.

  Mark Bahner

  On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Oh brother

  In a steady state economy, the average amount of money in real dollars earned by workers from the current generation to the next remains constant.

  At last, a worthy goal for the environmental movement!

  (</sarcasm>)

  Mark Bahner

  On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Ray Kurzweil and pollution trends

  But it seems you put a lot of weight into the authority of Ray Kurzweil.

  I put no weight on the authority of Ray Kurzweil.  I've read large parts of a couple of his books (The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near) and many of his Internet articles or debates.  It's his detailed research that impresses me, not who he is.  I'm persuaded by his evidence, not his authority.  

  As to the issue of wealth creation and energy, my own contention is that wealth comes from the capture and use of free energy.

  Again, look at North Korea vs South Korea.  The former East Germany vs the former West Germany.  Taiwan vs Mainland China (or Mainland China vs Hong Kong).  One say that South Korea, West Germany, Taiwan, and Hong Kong had better "capture and use of free energy" (although I'm not even sure what that means).  But could you PREDICT that they would have that better use?  What is predictive is that South Korea, West Germany, Taiwan, and Hong Kong all had more economic freedom than their counterparts.  

  It's obvious that this simple fact hurts everyone here, but it's still a simple fact.  Free human minds (especially economically free human minds) are what create wealth.

  Our technologies are also the source of our non-biological wastes. These are building up at an exponential pace.

  This is simply not true.  Both air and water pollution in the U.S. have significantly declined in the last 3 decades.  They have not increased...let alone increased "exponentially."

  What else should we expect from this scenario?

  Your "scenario" is just that...it has nothing to do with present trends.  Again, air pollution and water pollution in the U.S. have declined (significantly) in the last 3 decades.

  Mark Bahner

  On Economists cannot predict the future posted 1 year, 11 months ago 69 Responses