UK Energy Production

[RobinBHM]

pretty much all Western countries are based on growth to sustain their economies

people with wealth want growth for their assets to appreciate...........and wealthy people also have the power to influence governments

so we will continue with the contradiction of growing the economy whilst trying to protect the environment

 

[Agent_zed]

pretty much all Western countries are based on growth to sustain their economies

people with wealth want growth for their assets to appreciate...........and wealthy people also have the power to influence governments

so we will continue with the contradiction of growing the economy whilst trying to protect the environment

Yeah I admit I don't understand economics that well but I havent worked out how you can continually grow. In biological terms this would be seen as cancer. How long til we reach max capacity of what people can have, there is only so much space to put things and there are only so many services you can use.

 

[mwinfrance]

Those people who want continued growth, want to be able to put their McThings in their McHouses, in their McCountries, on a McPlanet..or two, or more.

 

[John Brown]

Yeah I admit I don't understand economics that well but I havent worked out how you can continually grow. In biological terms this would be seen as cancer. How long til we reach max capacity of what people can have, there is only so much space to put things and there are only so many services you can use.

What are you talking about? The emperor's new clothes are amazing!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Yeah I admit I don't understand economics that well but I havent worked out how you can continually grow. In biological terms this would be seen as cancer. How long til we reach max capacity of what people can have, there is only so much space to put things and there are only so many services you can use.

Traditionally growth has always been measured in economic terms. Probably a reasonable approach when some lack what most would regard as a reasonable level of material provision to aspire to. It has the benefit of objective measurement using a common denominator - £££, $$$ etc.

We may debate "reasonable" - eg: warm dry housing, adequate clothing and food, basic leisure pursuits, education, healthcare, transport, occasional holiday etc may fit the definition.

Other aspects of "growth" can benefit individuals and society in as meaningful a way - social harmony, contentment, improvements in health, reduction in disease, etc. AFAIK, no political party has focussed its strategies around wellbeing, preferring hard measurable concept.

There is no common denominator and efforts to create an "index" are inevitably skewed. Whilst reasonable "material" needs remain unfilled I suspect other non-economic measures will continue to take second place, no matter how important they are to a wider appreciationof growth.

 

[Eshmiel]

Yeah I admit I don't understand economics that well but I havent worked out how you can continually grow. In biological terms this would be seen as cancer. How long til we reach max capacity of what people can have, there is only so much space to put things and there are only so many services you can use.

Humankind reached that point long ago, really. The planet has become something of a slum boarding house for humans, degraded and degrading, with internecine competition for dwindling stuff and opportunities, no maintenance being done by the greedy owners, intent on building and stuffing more such boarding houses to increase their rent-income. Blackpool-in-Solar-System.

On the other hand, its not unlikely that some oligarchs have thought out the longer consequences of their desires and are even now plotting for and discovering means to evict we boarders from "their" planet so they can feel the glow of total and unfettered ownership of everything. They could just (as they have been doing) degrade the hoi-polloi to death; or they might quicken the process by releasing a pathogen for which only they have the anti. (I read it in a science fikshun novel).

Of course, they will still compete madly with each other, employing any and every means to "win". One day there will only be one Big Owner, possibly named something like Ugly Mask. He will have a robot wife and children to bully.

 

[Jacob]

Yeah I admit I don't understand economics that well but I havent worked out how you can continually grow.

You can't. It's a delusion. It's lazy thinking.
It's a popular notion with the rich, and with lazy politicians, because it suggests that more money/work will be available to keep the workers happy, without the rich having to pay more in taxes and have wealth redistributed in any inconvenient manner.
But in fact any increased wealth will still find it's way upwards and inequality will stay the same or increase.

In biological terms this would be seen as cancer. How long til we reach max capacity of what people can have, there is only so much space to put things and there are only so many services you can use.

We are already well past the limits, to such an extent that we are changing the climate, upsetting the whole apple cart, without addressing inequality at all.
Gary explains it well, to some extent, though he isn't exactly a smooth operator as an economics lecturer. He keeps it simple, but it really is simple!

 

[Jacob]

Traditionally growth has always been measured in economic terms. Probably a reasonable approach when some lack what most would regard as a reasonable level of material provision to aspire to. It has the benefit of objective measurement using a common denominator - £££, $$$ etc.

We may debate "reasonable" - eg: warm dry housing, adequate clothing and food, basic leisure pursuits, education, healthcare, transport, occasional holiday etc may fit the definition.

Other aspects of "growth" can benefit individuals and society in as meaningful a way - social harmony, contentment, improvements in health, reduction in disease, etc. AFAIK, no political party has focussed its strategies around wellbeing, preferring hard measurable concept.

There is no common denominator and efforts to create an "index" are inevitably skewed. Whilst reasonable "material" needs remain unfilled I suspect other non-economic measures will continue to take second place, no matter how important they are to a wider appreciationof growth.

Growth does not in itself produce benefits for all. In fact likely to do the opposite; giving more economic power to the already well off, increasing inequality.
Hence very wealthy countries like our own, with steadiy growing economies over generations, have increasing poverty, homelessness, etc and the running down of essential services, based on that myth/lie the austerity may somehow sort things out and give us growth. Jam tomorrow.

 

[RobinBHM]

Ironically it is easier to make money out of wealth destruction than it is wealth creation.

 

[Vulcan]

Fertilizer may be the big one.

Ah yes, of course.

 

[Jacob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jam_tomorrow