<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The $36,000 baby rebate]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by cnobert http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/ Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:51:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/1 focus on growth

I notice, though, that your solution still relies on economic growth. Eternal growth is the cancer cell's creed. We need to somehow articulate solutions that preclude growth.

If the population is shrinking, doesn't that mean that there will be more resources for everyone? It seems to me that what we need is controlled contraction.

]]> focus on growth

I notice, though, that your solution still relies on economic growth. Eternal growth is the cancer cell's creed. We need to somehow articulate solutions that preclude growth.

If the population is shrinking, doesn't that mean that there will be more resources for everyone? It seems to me that what we need is controlled contraction.

]]> Comment #2 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/ Fri, 02 Jun 2006 05:01:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/2 The world population will not peak for 50 years

Go here for a discussion of modern population trends.

Next, you have to pin down a definition for economic growth. Go here for a list.

Population is a variable in the chaotic equations of economic growth. To date, we barely have a handle on those equations in a world with a growing population. Things may be even better in a world with a shrinking population.

The key is that growth is an equation that has well-being somewhere in the numerator and the number of people somewhere in the denominator. Shrink the denominator and the quotient (economic growth) gets larger. The definition I favor acknowledges that growth is "per person":

A sustained increase in total output or output per person for an economy over a long period of time.

And note here from another definition:

If the economic growth occurs more slowly than the population growth, then there can be economic growth, but the average person is less well-off.

The inverse is that the average person is better off as long as productivity "per person" can increase even with a shrinking population.

If economic growth can be accomplished without environmental destruction (by using technology that does not pollute the air or water and by leaving ecosystems intact) then growth by itself is not the problem. Growth can't continue much longer as we are presently accomplishing it.

Let me give you an example of accumulated wealth that helps the planet. I purchased eleven acres of forestland adjacent to state forest with some of my disposable income (financially equivalent to buying a high end SUV). It brings me status (especially among fellow environmentalists), solitude, pleasure, family time, recreation and a lifetime of carbon sequestering for my entire family. A better investment you could not ask for.

Economists have no idea what equations will dominate in a world with a shrinking population.

About 50 years from now, our population may peak and start to decline, continue to slowly grow, or it may stabilize. If immigration policies have gotten their shit together by then, people will migrate to population centers where the jobs are, further depopulating rural areas while providing labor. As humanity lumps together into economic centers, growth "per person" can continue as poverty is reduced. Trying to guess future economic trends any further out than fifty years is pointless science fiction.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> The world population will not peak for 50 years

Go here for a discussion of modern population trends.

Next, you have to pin down a definition for economic growth. Go here for a list.

Population is a variable in the chaotic equations of economic growth. To date, we barely have a handle on those equations in a world with a growing population. Things may be even better in a world with a shrinking population.

The key is that growth is an equation that has well-being somewhere in the numerator and the number of people somewhere in the denominator. Shrink the denominator and the quotient (economic growth) gets larger. The definition I favor acknowledges that growth is "per person":

A sustained increase in total output or output per person for an economy over a long period of time.

And note here from another definition:

If the economic growth occurs more slowly than the population growth, then there can be economic growth, but the average person is less well-off.

The inverse is that the average person is better off as long as productivity "per person" can increase even with a shrinking population.

If economic growth can be accomplished without environmental destruction (by using technology that does not pollute the air or water and by leaving ecosystems intact) then growth by itself is not the problem. Growth can't continue much longer as we are presently accomplishing it.

Let me give you an example of accumulated wealth that helps the planet. I purchased eleven acres of forestland adjacent to state forest with some of my disposable income (financially equivalent to buying a high end SUV). It brings me status (especially among fellow environmentalists), solitude, pleasure, family time, recreation and a lifetime of carbon sequestering for my entire family. A better investment you could not ask for.

Economists have no idea what equations will dominate in a world with a shrinking population.

About 50 years from now, our population may peak and start to decline, continue to slowly grow, or it may stabilize. If immigration policies have gotten their shit together by then, people will migrate to population centers where the jobs are, further depopulating rural areas while providing labor. As humanity lumps together into economic centers, growth "per person" can continue as poverty is reduced. Trying to guess future economic trends any further out than fifty years is pointless science fiction.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> Comment #3 by ichoose http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/ Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:56:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-36000-baby-rebate/3 birth dearth

Instead of encouraging more births, why not invite some of the world's millions of refugees to move in and contribute?  It seems that spreading the existing (over)population around is a better idea than increasing it.

]]> birth dearth

Instead of encouraging more births, why not invite some of the world's millions of refugees to move in and contribute?  It seems that spreading the existing (over)population around is a better idea than increasing it.

]]>