Slashdot Mirror
Modeling the Economy As a Physics Problem
University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem — and comes to some controversial conclusions: that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal Climatic Change. "[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. ... 'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says. 'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine' that 'consumes energy and does "work" in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,' he says. That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,' Garrett says. ... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
We have to stop somewhere. At six billion or six trillion. It has to happen. The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation. Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.
Or we can learn to regulate our population, as the Chinese are trying to do. Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility. But have China and India gone too far for this to work? I am sure the US nearly did, because you have to wear high birth rates and high energy consumption at the same time for a while (the 1950s) for it to work. The same peak would put the energy consumption of 10 billion USA or AU people in China alone.
Don't ask me for help. I'll be starting a farm on Ganymede.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
If you build something more efficient now, you can do more than you could originally.
That makes sense.
If a kettle takes half as much electricity to boil water than it did before, you can boil twice as much water with the same electricity right? You end up using more hot water for other purposes? Like more tea.
Someone else can provide a car analogy, I don't have a licence to drive.
Is what he is saying? Ultimately we are just trading energy for more of the same work, right?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
If you are getting enough bang for the buck, you will spend the buck; otherwise you will save it until the time is ripe.
So, is the economy or global warming treated as a perfect sphere?
Global thermonuclear war : 80% less economic output in developed countries, a nuclear winter, and a selection of the fittest specimens of the human race plus a few Pygmeas, Tibetans, Polynesians, Swedes and Swiss.
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
This fits with an observation by insurance companies (or at least mine, USAA) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin. We still end up with about as many crashes (but injuries are less).
It involved an apple.
On the six-billion-body problem, please?
It makes sense that the economy is directly related to energy use.
It doesn't make sense to maintain ridiculous standards of living ("But I NEED a car! How can I get a girlfriend if I don't have a car?!").
On monday I plan to read the actual article, not just the sciencedaily report, because I'm curious about the "1 nuclear plant" per day conclusion...
new sig
The problem is that you can't adjust for inflation too far back, because the "basket of goods and services" that inflation is measured upon changes every now and then, so the cost of everyday items now can't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920. Some things that were necessities in 1920 aren't anymore, and some things that are necessities now weren't even invented. The most you're going to get is a very rough estimation of what the dollar was worth.
Its long been known that energy consumption is highly correlated with economic output/growth. And I don't see how it is provactive to claim that conserving energy results in more being used (in the long run). Are not virtually *all* of our modern day appliances far more efficient than they were 10, 20, 40 years ago? And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980. So even though we have 'conserved' through large gains in efficiency we are still using energy at a record clip.
There's another implication of that theory, and it's one that conservatives have been arguing for some time now: the end result of the current drive to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the destruction of the worlkd economy.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.
While I can't speak to the validity of the underlying theory as such, a conclusion like this doesn't really come as a shock. The 20th century saw an steady stream of "labor-saving" inventions that are now part of our daily lives, but we don't have more leisure time than our ancestors -- in many cases, we actually have less -- because all of that liberated time was promptly consumed by new forms of work.
Sooner or later, we're going to have to come to terms with our now obsolete species-wide obsession with material acquisition. It made sense before we developed tools and civilization: grab all you can while it's abundant because scarcity is the norm. Now that we have all we actually need and then some, we're just killing ourselves with the byproducts of our superfluous production.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.
Sorry, but that's the truth.
And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones. That is all, carry on.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Which is why Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are environmental Garden of Edens.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This sounds like Jevons Paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
When we conserve energy, we can and do use the saved energy for other activities. "conservation" is not really conservation if we promptly use the saved energy for another activity.
Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production. Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20%: we return to the original problem.
In the long run, the 4 horsemen will eventually impose their own solution on humankind. Many people will die in the process.
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?
Human's are not machines. We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us. We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior. In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit. Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make. Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior. Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior. The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate. Humans are irrational. Physics is rational. Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.
Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality. Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine. No wonder he's been panned. Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.
I can see why this gets a run here – scientists are cool nerds; economists are not – but in the end it's a guy doing research outside of his field. Sometimes you get tremendous insights, but most of the time (as in this case) you don't.
* I'm not talking about the physiocrats here, okay?
Disclaimer: I am an economist.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
and other solutions does not. Basically, tax all goods at point of consumption (retail tax) with a CO2 tax based on WHERE ASSEMBLED AND PRIMARY SUB-COMPONENT come from, combined with the CO2 to get there (the further away a good is from consumption should incur a heavier tax due to shipping). Any other solution, esp. the command economy that is being pushed by EU under Kyoto is doomed to fail. It is the ONLY solution that I have seen that will involve all countries, businesses and nearly all ppl.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So more expending means more more energy and more global warming? That didnt took into account the huge expendings that means try to reduce global warming. Is an ok analogy if we dont care about it (or say that is a hoax, a trap or a government/scientist evil plot), and dont take any measure. But once you start taking measures, expendings go up, and energy output (should) go down.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf
[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation.
No.
Data also shows that there is a correlation between the number of teddy bears that children own and how wealthy their parents are. Does owning teddy bears cause a child's parents to be wealthy?
The more prosperous an economy is, the more things that the people buy. Including energy. This is not news. The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!
Correlation is not causation.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
that would be what appears to have transpired.
no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, so it will soon be easy to establish who 'owns'/owes what/anything.
it's been said that the greatest fear of the so-called rich, is that the so-called poor, will rise up & eat them.
"or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day."
I don't have a problem with this. Let's get building.
Eventually we'll turn towards the sun, and nuclear will only be our failsafe, but I have no problem with it filling in the gaps.
Mission accomplished, then. Kudos all around.
This was discovered a LONG time ago - like 1865. It's called Jevon's Paradox.
However, Jevon's (and Garrett) get turned upside down when energy sources deplete and costs for energy steadily increase. Then, the only way you can have economic growth IS through massive conservation, insofar as a society's base usage decreases faster than the net energy in the system does, thereby leaving a margin. This margin allows for "growth". As the system bumps up against depletion rates, the cost spikes and the economy contracts and energy use decreases again below depletion, allowing for more "growth". However, the total area under the growth curve is always decreasing as well - hence it is a "relative" growth. This relative growth needs to be put DIRECTLY into alternative energy systems, or you can kiss technical civilisation goodbye.
The sad part is, if we continue to demand absolute growth, and we do not create MASSIVE energy systems and mitigation systems, we'll drive civilisation right off a cliff. It'll make the movie "The Road" look like a documentary.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
you say ? you mean,
"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
this ?
and it provocates what, stupidity ? and makes a point of what, trivializing energy conservation ? i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.
lets not conserve energy then. because, it only spurs more growth and more energy use. lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy. yea.
lets do that, because, well, it is a 'provocative implication' of someone's theory. in another perspective, why conserve, whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway ...
Read radical news here
Please do continue measuring tree rings, directly extrapolating tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature for a thousand years, while discarding the last decades where you actually had accurate temperature measurements as they don't fit the tree ring data. Antropogenic global warming isn't even falsifiable. If temperature rises, its due to global warming. If it falls, it is due to global warming. This is not real science.
Don't forget China
What exactly do you base your statement that this is a bad model? Or do you object to something different and unique? Personally, I would like to see more about what this guy has before nuking it.
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models. As it is, you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior, i.e. psych, an even weaker science.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not unless you model all the subatomic particles in all the humans making decisions, along with all those in their environment. It was exactly that sort of model -- the Phillips curve, to be precise -- that led economists to believe that inflation and recession were mutually exclusive. They're not, as we discovered in the 1960s.
And for a physicist, he doesn't seem to be approaching the subject very scientifically, either. He has found a correlation, and on that basis concludes that it's an unvarying constant? Whatever happened to hypothesis forming and testing? Whatever happened to the principle that it isn't science unless there is a model describing why cause and effect are related? Yes, I know physicists sometimes have to cope without those things -- gravitation is a classic example -- but then they recognise that there's a hole in their science and work hard to fix it. The correlation that Garrett has found has nothing like the scientific confidence of gravitation. He's found a correlation? Well, what is the mechanism that causes that correlation, and which bits of it can be changed? Only if none of them can possibly be changed is it a "physical constant", and if it can be changed if "the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day" then clearly it can be changed. Surely, either it is a "simple physical constant" or it isn't?
The discovery of the correlation looks like interesting work. Unfortunately, it probably won't turn out to be useful work because it's too wrapped up in hysteria and by identifying the correlation coefficient as a "physical constant" Garrett has rejected the very thing that needs to be studied -- how we change it.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Like many republicans have said, this issue WILL resolve itself. What bothers me is that it will likely be in my lifetime, but it will certainly be in my kids lifetime.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
WHile a lot of knowledge would be gone, it is far more likely that more than enough will be captured that the world would equal to at least 1900, probably later. The simple fact is, that libraries are a massive store of knowledge.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm a bit confused here. We have all these people screaming we are going to die if we don't stop raping the Earth and the all point to CO2 levels as the end result of raping the Earth. So why aren't we just removing CO2 from the air? I mean we know how to scrub CO2 from the air right? We even know how to convert CO2 to Carbon Monoxide and O...if CO2 levels are so important and we have no way to control the release of CO2...then why don't these governments we pay so many taxes to scrubbing the air already?
This sounds like static analysis.
Projecting from current CO2 trends this simplisticly assumes that there are no mechanisms that will absorb more CO2 at higher concentrations. This has already scuppered some earlier climate predictions (IIRC scientists didn't used to take into account how much CO2 algae could really sequester).
Climate change is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. But I think the idea that we need to choose between a nuclear power station per day or getting rid of industrial civilisation is not to be taken seriously.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
This whole thing drives me crazy. Is man screwing up the earth? Absolutely, but the solutions the politicians and algoreans are suggesting is pay to play. You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft was forced to deal with the fact that their software is responsible for ninety-five percent of virus infections, but instead of, Oh I don't know - MAKING THEM BUILD BETTER SOFTWARE - , we simply require that they pay for the tuition of every High School graduate who wants to get a degree in Computer Science.
Freejack. If this system survives longer than twenty-five years, Al Gore and every other person on the inside will live in secure cities with fresh water, abundant food and toss scraps to the rest of the world to feed the need for compassion.
As for me, I've got my money on the zoo of the future. Imagine being able to see the extinct Blue Jay, Cardinal, and if you are really lucky an Eagle.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Dateline 1488: William Howell purchases a nice manor in Buckinghamshire, England but has a recurring nightmare that he is living 521 years in the future. Sucks to be him.
Building the equivalent of a nuclear plant every day is not as high a bar as it might seem. The equivalent of might some day mean harvesting a banana peal to toss into Mr. Fusion.
No, we get your mama's bedroom mixed up with a whorehouse.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I'm too old and stuck with my brain washing to think of anything better myself, but I have faith in the younger folks to take us in a direction that will improve life here.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
This is exactly what Technocracy has been saying for over 80 years. They were the first to "treat the economy like a physics problem", the only difference is that they saw it coming and warned us way back when it was far easier to do something about it. Now, whether we can do something about it without too much pain is in question, but if we can then we have to do something about it now while we still can. Like one commenter said here earlier, "The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is _defined_". Technocracy has provided a logical answer to this too that is worth checking out. It needs a bit of updating since the movement is so small right now, but the underlying basis for it all is still quite sound. If you want a good scientific way of looking at our economy, and how it relates to our environment, then this is the place to start. I'm glad to see more modern research being done that confirms this.
Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. - M. King Hubbert
It goes without saying that energy use and population go hand in hand. If we apply serious birth control laws we can actually shrink world population and use less and less energy. Sadly nations rarely have any real limits on reproduction as corporations instill nonsense in the population about the glorious nature of the family so that babies will be born and more and more products will be sold.
Let your breakfast cereal company picture real families and the hell that most of them go through and watch what happens to sales.
This is the exact same conclusion that (rather famous) economist William Jevons came to in 1865. Jevon's Paradox anyone? You can Google it.
Yea, sure if you look at humanity's growth over the last century there has been a jump, but it's already at the top of the curve I think. I believe there will be a green boom and it will be the last of the great booms as it rushes to find the optimum way of sutainability. There's no point bringing everything to a snails pace just when we have arguably the most important of the next booms - the sutainibility boom. I do believe policies like the China 1 child policy are helpful to justifying our future.
If you want to model the economy as a physics problem, you will have to factor in a special category for politicians AND companies like the RIAA / MPAA. They would represent either;
.... and also factor into this category's equation a loooooooong rate of change time.
a) the force of resistance to change.
OR
b) the amount of useful work done (which tends towards zero).
Take Nobody's Word For It.
"Statist Capitalism" is even less like capitalism than the USSR's structure was like communism.
and that's the classic response of someone who justifies himself as superior somehow to most humans.
I find that it's the people who label humanity's problems as 'our' problems, that actually really care and aren't just looking out for #1, and by our, you should always mean 'as many as possible'. Also, if we make an effort to educate and inspire children to solve the big problems, and think of the world as a reflection on them, their wider community as a reflection on them, and their home as a reflection of them (like concentric circles), they could make more of a difference. I do believe in the '1 child' policy however!
Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.
I predict that economic theory in general will move in this direction.
There are other alternatives to the nuke method however. We could do massive wind and solar,
supplemented by ocean wave and geothermal.
Opponents with a vested interest in the status quo claim these are marginal and intermittent (not core)
power sources, but they do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the power balancing you could do
with a continent-wide superconducting smart-switching power grid.
Another, complementary, alternative is that we can back off on our tendency to destroy natural eco-systems and
replace them by our own systems,
and let some of them (natural systems) thrive, and do some of the work for us. This only works if we support them
and harvest them with humility and respect.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
..modelling the flow of credit on the stock market as a physics problem, and have some kind of control flow, instead of modelling it like a balloon as they do ...
yeah, and responsible global leadership as an ethical problem.
I'm starting to think China is the right place to be - I'd prefer the 1-child policy over the exterminate mankind philosophy.
No, the point is that economic activity is determined by energy production such that 9.7 mW = US$1 of economy, population is determined by economy so it follows population is determined by energy production. If you think the world has too many people, all you have to do is restrict the energy production to the only support the desired population level and the excess people will starve off or be killed in the ensuing resources wars; good luck with that.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What's this? But I keep hearing that our problems are the fault of "greedy capitalists", and that "capitalism" means an unlimited government trying to dictate and control the economy while working hand-in-hand with giant corporations.
Come to think of it, isn't a capitalist economy easier to model with physics-like methods than a statist economy like that of (say) Europe or where the US has largely gone? In an idealized (in the sense of "oversimplified") capitalist society, you're dealing with a bunch of semi-rational actors acting individually, as opposed to massive decisions getting imposed by unpredictable political methods. Whether capitalists shift to a new energy tech depends on costs and innovation, but whether statists shift to a new energy tech depends more on whether Senator So-and-So cajoles and bribes his way to getting a bill passed.
Revive the Constitution.
World population today: >6 billion. World population ca. 1900: 1 billion.
Revive the Constitution.
Given the fuzziness of his source data, a claimed sigma of 1.5% for his magic constant is strong evidence of a fatal flaw in his model. It needs a much closer look.
I couldn't find a copy of the actual paper. If anyone knows where to find it, please let us know.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
"Starvation is a geopolitical problem, not a resource problem."
That is so completely wrong, it's mind boggling. Fatally so. Currently, for each calorie you eat, 9/10ths of it came from oil.
In short, we've become a planet which is eating oil. When the oil stops, the population shrinks. There is no easy substitute for oil, and no easy answer for our resource problem.
Yes, there are finite limits to our resources. Get used to the idea. Unlimited resources were the hallmark of the 20th century. Finite resources are defining the 21st century.
Oh, and oil production has been constantly dropping each quarter for the past 1.5 years.
It's a population crunch Christmas sale! Order any two home sterilization kits and we'll throw in a third at NO EXTRA CHARGE! And who could resist a beautiful soylent Christmas pudding, now with extra 'rasins'. Buy now and avoid being crushed to death in the stampede!
So, in other words, this guy is commenting on a field about which he has no knowledge, using tools that have no proven relevance or use to the area under discussion.
I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that he had a hard time getting his paper published.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
as they are not the same thing. One is a natural science and the other is a social science.
It also does not take into account that since 1999 temperatures are dropping instead of rising. While global warming skeptics claim it proves it is a hoax, it could also be that due to people taking corrective actions to reduce their carbon footprint since 1999, it caused a reversal in global warming, but we are still in danger unless we convert at least 90% of our energy sources to green energy and green technology.
I reject the notion that greenhouse gasses are evil, and must be removed. I do agree that too much of them lead to higher temps and too little of it leads to lower temps. What we need to do is find the right balances of greenhouse gases in our environment, not seek to remove them all, least it lead to an ice age. The people claiming a removal of all greenhouse gases are being stupid, as it would lead to an ice age, and then be the opposite of global warming, global cooling.
I am more concerned about the eventual "heat death" of the universe.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
-- English nursery rhyme
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.
Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20%: we return to the original problem.
And how is this different from the situation that has faced all life since life began?
Humanity has had centuries of "vacation" from the "living condition". And still has it, because food production increases are still outpacing population growth.
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.
Given that technology is on a faster exponential than population growth, that's a reasonable expectation. Will it go on "forever"? Seems unlikely - unless something changes in cosmology.
But at this point we're approaching the "event horizon" of "the singulaity" - which I define as "The time when technology is advancing so fast that, by the time ANY science fiction writer has fleshed his new-and-plausible technological idea out in to a manuscript, it has already been implemented, productized, and deployed."
At that time even plausible speculation on the future becomes something beyond merely human capacity. (Fortunately, what's driving the accelleartion is non-human computation capability augmenting human tasks. Given that plausible speculation about the future is such a task it may yet continue. B-) )
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.
The same claim can (and repeatedly has) been made about believing in the products of the scientific method. Again, how is yours different?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A physicist, who uses power and energy as synonyms is really trustworthy.
Dude, I got that model too.
No, you can't watch movies on my iMac.
Just curious to know, does these complicated mathematical models consider factors such as collusion, corruption etc?
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
as far as most economists go, the physical economy is pretty much off the radar screen. I consider this study to be about the physical economy. No wonder economists do not like it. And the author observes that collapse or reduction in living standards is not much discussed. I wonder why. But we are getting austerity policies to pay for bailing out the speculators while the physical economy collapses.
So here is something that seems to be true and relevant. Considering humans, from before fire and on, we have made our living by increased energy *density*. We seem, especially from the study, to get population density from increased energy, but new fundamental physical principles come from the density, and thus the really new tech.
What we need to do right now is get rid of monetarist stuff like the 1.5 quadrillion dollars of derivatives. The waste has killed the physical economy. This is no longer enough, but it is obvious and part of a possibly successful approach.
Here's a link to the actual paper
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/
...that Economics is all about people and culture and NOT about money and resources.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Uh, not to defend communism or anything, but China's pollution problems began precisely when it started moving to capitalism. It is arguable that China is more capitalistic that the US at this point. Any vestiges of communism are just imagery and tourist attractions.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I just find a bunch of journalists talking about a nameless paper that's online in the Climate Change journal. It would be nice to be able to actually RTFA.
The ghost of Christmas future?
http://www.collapsemovie.com/
So if "Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption." then the trick would be to create conservation/efficiency without spurring economic growth... so compensate with a tax at the same time?
e.g. mandate more fuel efficient cars and increase the tax on gasoline at the same time to make the average cost of driving cost/km the same in the future as it does now...
Reading the actual paper was like a breath of fresh air, this guy is on to something. It also forecasts doom and gloom.. mind you, so do all the other models? It doesn't really matter what theoretical model we use to account for the empircal data flowing already, the outcome is the same: We are screwed. Our elders have thrown a party and paid for it by mortgaging our future.
Mr Kurzweil hurry up with that uploading stuff, I don't want to be in meatspace when the shit hits the fan.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
The Earth isn't following the climate models, it missed the memo. Truth is we're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
It's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not "climatologists", whatever the hell those are. I didn't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree. The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, it's 0.5% of the land mass there while the other 99.5% of Antarctica has been *cooling* since the 1960s. That's real science, folks. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml
"The sea levels are rising!". The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years, thankfully it's slowed down the past 2,000 years!
"Carbon dioxide levels are at record high, it's a dangerous greenhouse gas!". The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor, its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined! Carbon dioxide is reactive, it increases after the earth warms. horse. cart. Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens. Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase!
Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out, that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50+ years. Solar output at record high in late 90s. Sun driving climate, what a shocker.
"Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?"
Scientists and engineers have a long and detailed history of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems. Religion, on the other hand, places the burden of the final proof on the far side of death, and has no real track record of delivering on their promises.
These things are not equivalent at all. Not even close.
Greed - corruption - abuse of power - poor management - and wankin' off share holders. You might have a useful simulation.
Good luck with that
Its not the years, its the mileage
Don't spread the bullshit so thickly. There are no Nobel Prize categories for astrology, professional wrestling, economics or phrenology. Get over it.
Can you name a single country where massive regulation of manufacturing ever worked as intended? Not even Stalin could get rid of the corruption that massive regulation causes.
I agree that it's much better to produce longer lasting products, but the reason why industry produces "garbage" isn't because they want to sell the same products to you again. Some analysts have become enamored by this "planned obsolescence" concept, but I don't think it's the reasoning the industry uses.
In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand. Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is *very* small. People will rather have luxury than quality.
Look at the current state of the economy: people have been spending left and right, going to the limit on their credit, to buy things they don't need. In that general context, how much support do you think a proposal to spend more carefully, paying more for simpler products that last longer, would get?
People do not want better products that last longer, they want the latest and shiniest useless throwaway stuff they can get.
That's not a physical model. Where are the CAUSATION mechanisms? Without that, it's just fitting curves and therefore quite unlike GCMs.
Bollocks. In the middle ages there were 150 holy days (holidays) a year. Little work was done.
Before incandescent lights, when the sun went down, you went to bed.
Winter time farming ends mid autumn when you put silage out on the fields and fuck off home.
And now how many people here complain of 80-hour weeks?
Sea level rise? You know. It's just a wild stab in the dark, but it could quite possibly be due to that.
And do you think that the engineers know about coastal erosion rates and what the nearby cliff (if cliff there is, because that is a requirement for your response that isn't in the OP post, so you assumed it without evidence) is made of and how quickly it will erode?
No?
Yes?
You're so convinced that AGW is false that you'll make anything up to say it isn't happening.
You say that as if we had a problem of growth instead of distribution.
I grew up in northern ill about 20 minutes south of Lake Geneva, Wisc. We had a town of less than 500 (now up to 1600 according to city-data). We had numerous libraries all around. Exactly why do you think that the libraries in this fairly rural area would be on fire? In fact, why would you think that all libraries are gone? Or for that matter, the majority? As it is, China, makes heavy use of Neutron bombs, which will have less of a firebomb.
And that is just in America. All of the developed countries have loads of libraries, and the majority of the undeveloped nations will not see a nuke, just radiation.
Besides, I seriously doubt that it would be nukes. Instead, it is more likely to be something like Avian Flu or some other virus spread by mother nature, or even terrorists (like say Al Qaeda; it is trivial to make this happen; Thank God that they have religious restrictions, though I do wonder what will happen when we have them on the ropes).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's a side issue, but this is complete hogwash. Every organism will increase as much as possible - they don't "instinctively" come to equilibrium, equilibrium is forced on them by competition. In the event that an organism becomes so well adapted that it dominates its competition, its numbers will increase until it dies off as a result of increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. A good example: snow geese. For many years, snow goose populations were very low because their natural habitats were limited. But then, beginning about in the 70's, two things happened: 1) snowy owl populations increased in the far north, which had the effect of increasing snow goose nesting success by driving away snow goose predators, and 2) snow geese learned to exploit a new (to them) resource: agricultural waste. As a result of those two factors, the snow goose population exploded. Unfortunately, however, it didn't "come to equilibrium" with its environment - snow geese are now so overpopulated that they're destroying both their spring breeding grounds and their wintering grounds. Unless the population can be gotten under control through hunting (which so far has had pretty limited success), a population crash is inevitable
There are other examples of the same phenomenon in other species, but what's relevant here is that humans are just an extreme example. We are so tremendously adaptable that we've been able to colonize nearly every environment on the surface of the earth, and have so outstripped every other creature that our population has grown too much for the earth to support it. That's a real problem, and I don't mean to pooh-pooh it. But I do get annoyed when I hear more examples of the meme that "animals (and primitive humans) lived in harmony with the earth, but evil (modern) man has forgotten how to do this". It's just not true - all species expand to fill all available space in whatever niche they occupy.
Yes, science has a better track record than religion in solving the world's problems. But blindly assuming that "science" is going to solve all our problems is itself not science - it's religion. There are certain facts involved here: 1) the earth's population is growing exponentially, while earth's resources are not. 2) there's no credible mechanism for exploiting resources off earth (at least, at a price anyone could afford).
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that those assuming that science/technology will save us are doing anything other than channelling Pollyanna. To state this another way: using the scientific method/technological processes to solve actual problems: science. Assuming that science will solve a problem, without any evidence that it's possible: religion (or might as well be).
Yes, it's funny, but there's a large element of truth here. There's a long and sordid history of experts in other fields applying what they know to climate science, and coming up with stupid results. I think there's a really good chance that the earth's economy isn't really like a heat engine all, and these results will turn out not to mean much.
He must have missed the email which revealed that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete fraud:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34550
... whether this model is valid, but I can say this: 1) it isn't exactly intuitively obvious that you can model interactions between the economy and the climate in terms of a heat engine, and 2) attempts by non-climate scientists to work on climate science have a long and fairly sordid history of producing garbage (see Superfreakonomics for an excellent example). So I think there's a lot of room for skepticism here.
Also, eyerolls at the slap at so-called "soft sciences". First of all, it's just not true that such things "resist the idea of applying math". Economics and sociology are both very math/statistics intensive. Also, economics (as stated in the GP post) is clearly within the realm of human behavior, but you're going to diss attempts to explain it in those terms because you don't like those icky "soft" sciences?
For what it's worth, I have a BS in physics and an MS in applied physics, so it's not like I'm some squishy "soft scientist". I just think it's silly to look down your nose at other disciplines based on your prejudices about them.
Now *this* is an interesting take on things...good link!
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Our society is predicated on the idea that the economy can grow at some rate... forever. The trouble is that there are only two ways to grow the economy. You can either 1) get more workers or 2) increase productivity of your existing workforce. And the trouble with this is that there's only so much room for new people, and productivity can't be increased without limits either. So one way or another, either due to lack of labor or insufficient resource inputs... the economy is going to have to stop growing at some point. And I'm not sure anyone knows how that will affect society.
Finally we have someone getting it. Thanks Tim Garrett. Let me point out something that follows naturally: intelligence in a species is pathological. It is intelligence that allows us to create the economies and the natural distortions that result, distortions that must inevitably lead to the collapse of the species. For this reason I don't believe there are intelligent species out there that we will be contacting. Nor will we be around long enough to create all the wonderful scifi futures we seem to take for granted.
E Proelio Veritas.
For a very interesting take on physicists and economic modeling, take a listen to this lecture by Tom Whyntie of the LHC given at the Royal Institute. http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=897
"But I keep hearing that our problems are the fault of "greedy capitalists", and that "capitalism" means an unlimited government trying to dictate and control the economy while working hand-in-hand with giant corporations."
That's because you're listing only to ideologues and morons. That's fascism, not capitalism.
Now I see your problem fucktard. You prefer to fuck your own sister,a whore for your entire fucktarded family, so you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a bedroom and a whorehouse. The reason you used my mom is because your uncle is also your fucktarded father. No wonder you are so fucking stupid.
Perhaps you talk about some other Eastern Europe than that where I come from (Poland). The huge government-led industrialization projects were beyond any control and no concern was given to environment. During 1960-1980 the devastation was so rampant, even the strictly censored newspapers wrote about massive health problems and deaths caused by pollution.
Have you ever seen a lilly-violet "water" in a river or a "forest" of dead trees still standing?
In Poland the onset of capitalism and shift away from inefficient, outdated technologies has allowed the environment to recover during the last 20 years, but the river I used to bath in as a toddler is still too dirty to enter. Sadly, it seems my river is going to remain dirty in the future, as the money is diverted away from real problems (environmental pollution) into a scam scheme of limiting CO2 emissions (bankers' pockets).
I examine this proposition now using statistics for the combination of world energy production a (Annual Energy Review 2006) and real global economic production P (United Nations 2007) (expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars) for the 36 year interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are currently available.
...
Of course it is possible that this observed result only holds over the 36-year period for which global energy consumption statistics are available, but it is expected theoretically; the period examined covers over half of total historical growth in a and C, and two thirds of P; and, the observational uncertainty is small enough to plausibly reflect errors or noise in historical data.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar.
Even moreso than the implications for energy conservation is the actual units of his "constant". This implies that having each dollar in circulation requires a constant expenditure of energy. That is, without constant energy production and consumption, we would not even have an economy, or trade. Growth in the economy, or in trade, is directly correlated to growth in energy production. Decline in energy production would then theoretically lead to collapse of economic growth.
Unlike others, I find this unit to be surprisingly small. If you compare it to the price of renewable energy, for example, a 200 watt solar panel costs around $600, yet according to the constant supports $20,000/year of economic activity. This shows the extreme disconnect between the money economy and the physical economy.
I wonder how well this constant holds up under extreme circumstances, such as the productive capacity of a single person on a desert island or that of a single family of subsistence farmers.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
And remember, those retail goods (including food) imported from China were produced under those same polluted conditions.
It would be interesting to do an analysis of, say, cotton grown in China, with an eye to toxins included during growth.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There you go again, bringing class into it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We get all sorts of food from China. Lots of farmed fish and shellfish. I've been wondering for a while whether mercury levels in farmed fish could be linked to mercury emissions from coal power plants. If you consider that an easy way to grow fish food is by piping the output of a smokestack into a pond, you on second thought probably don't want to continue down that line of reasoning and join me in my own personal little theoretical hell.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
We need energy to power our agriculture. When the energy goes away, so will the population.
Deleted
I agree 100%. We can choose to leave within our environmental means... but we'll have to do so. Appropriate valuation of environmental services is an important part of this - by setting a market value on environmental services, this problem (at least in part) is taken care of automatically.
whereas physicists, chemists, etc; can do experiments, economists and sociologists for the most part can't. It's not like you can have the Fed, for example, change around interest rates to see if your economic model is valid. You have to wait for natural economic conditions to reproduce the conditions in your model and see if the model predicts the appropriate results... and it can take quite a while for that to happen. In the meantime, your model may be producing inaccurate results, but there's no way to know.
...the map is not the landscape.
This is a compelling model in that it significantly differs from the form of modelling used in Macro economic forecasting, which makes it useful for debate.
This is still, however, a process model that grossly simplifies the system and is therefore subject to the same limitations as all models; that they are not reality. You can use them to determine relative weightings between different situations but cannot use them to predict the future.
I applaud the concept of introducing different modelling techniques into economic (indeed any) debate; but do not make the mistake of drawing long term conclusions from the results of any one technique, no matter how appealing.
The sad thing is that Academic publication is so insular that a paper such as this did not get play in economic journals... in the same way that an economists take on super symmetry would never get published in a physics journal. The mono-disciplinary goggles that most journals apply is the real danger to progress in almost every field of science. It is more important that we consider the merits of the views and arguments of those who disagree with us than wrap ourselves in a comforting blanket of people who agree with us completely, as they do not inform us.
Just my $0.02.
err!
jak.
Thought I had read that Climate Change was now run by the global climate change deniers. Makes sense that they would publish an article that is easy to denounce, even if it does support 'global warming'.
I have never been a fan of 'global warming' as a phrase since it is easy to make statements like 'last fall was the coolest since X' as an anecdotal evidence that it isn't real. The point is that there is more energy in the environment, which tends to increase the variability of the climate, bigger storms, hotter summers, colder winters, over multi-year scales.
http://blog.slaingod.com
An engineer showed a relationship between inflation and unemployment. It worked for a few years and then it did not. Short term predictions do not hold for the long term as Long Term Capital Management showed us.
And does China have to follow the same quality control, inspections, and testing that U.S.-produced foodstuffs do?? I'm guessing not, considering that they're allowed to slide on electronics (and I'm not sure what all else).
Country of origin labeling is one of the few GOOD new regulations, if only it was uniformly applied...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well, it is an interesting conclusion, with major logical problems. This finding by itself is not adequate for the appropriate apprehension of the issue before us.
A quality effort to enumerate the entire energy and CO2 reduction issue is:
http://www.withouthotair.com/ ; A book by David MacKay
On the threat "otherwise we have to build 1 atomic power plant per day..."
I recommend Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline An Ecopragmatist Manifesto". Mr. Brand favors emphasis on nuclear power and a number of other innovative approaches to dealing with the global warming problem.
The CO2 reduction task will require substantial changes to the American business and social system. We are in a formative phase right now.
Also, you can visit my "Put carts on the public bus" blog, for charts and dismal economic analyses galore:
http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/
People want what they want, and are wired to want it. In the past this wiring has been an evolutionary advantage. However under a high standard of living regime it is easy to get what one wants without having children. Of course children are still desired, but most choose to have zero one or two. Sex, and a satisfying lifestyle can be had without unwanted procreation thanks to birth control.
Of course as environments change what was once adaptive may become maladaptive. People with a high standard of living are living in such a radically altered environment, and that environment is likely to be very unfit for the species until and unless the species adapts.
One similar example of a creature whose innate wiring has become maladaptive in a newly changed environment is the Julodimorpha bakewelli beetle. It's a kind of Australian Jewel Beetle whose males prefer sex with discarded brown glass beer bottles to sex with female beetles.
The beetles will adapt or be wiped out by the glass beer bottles. People must adapt to a high standard of living or be wiped out by it.
...
Sounds like a self-regulating system to me...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
If we are talking at a global scale, energy input and energy end-use are probably measures which will determine the macroeconomic feasibility of various activities, in a global-business and environmentally constrained world. I am confident that energy based measures will better match up with ecological limits than money based measures will.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Fucktards like you tend to get Communism mixed up with statist capitalism.
Statist capitalism,like jumbo shrimp, is an oxymoron due to the fact statism is the total control of everything, economics included. If the economic system is under total control of the state then it is, by definition, no longer capitalistic in nature.