Few people in the world today are able to see that infinite growth on a finite planet is a physical impossibility, and most of those who do are unwilling to acknowledge it or face up to it. The one person I know of who is best able make the case for that fact is Dr. Tim Morgan. He has been doing so progressively for some time on his website Surplus Energy Economics.
His latest post, #325: The long run, billed as Adventures in Thermo-Economics, is a thorough exposition which shows that the economic growth of the real economy of goods and services since the end of World War II was made possible by the availability of cheap fossil fuel energy, oil and later, gas. But the cost of energy out in terms of energy in has been increasing, so the heyday is over and is bringing with it a decline in overall prosperity.I know it’s a lot to read, but if you want a deep understanding, you’ll be well rewarded.
2 Responses
Strongly disagree. Infinite growth has nothing to do with a finite planet. The idea is a category error. Demonstrably, people already perceive value in, and pay money for, digital assets which are not limited by physicality.
Economic growth is measured in value, not in kilograms of matter or joules of energy. A finite planet certainly constrains physical production, but it does not automatically constrain the creation of value.
The finite-planet argument can only claim that certain forms of physical growth are constrained by physical reality. But it is a fallacy to claim that GDP, wealth, or knowledge face this restriction.
GDP is not a measure of production but the amount of visible transactions through the established markets.