Dennis Meadows, Co-Author of Limits To Growth: Peak Prosperity Interview

[Mister Imperceptible]

How about when the stock market crashes and pensions/Social Security become insolvent, we just let most of the Baby Boomers starve to death?

[7Wannabe5]

Okay, except the ones who are still buff and can play guitar.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Sure, let their Sugar Mamas support them with all their hard earned and saved money.

In any case, at a certain point, “the whole world needs to be reorganized so I can have free shit and sex with whomever” puts a tarnish on the idea one gives a shit about the environment, society, mankind, or really anyone except yourself.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, any that stay with me will also have to be willing to slaughter the meat rabbits, repair fencing, and brew their own beer if they want some. I kind of have a FWB only policy for buff guitar players who aren't also handy and a ONS-only policy for buff guitar players who don't own more than 3 books. That's why I sometimes have to err on the side of "expensive dinner providers" due to better correlation with reading level.

In any case, at a certain point, “the whole world needs to be reorganized so I can have free shit and sex with whomever” puts a tarnish on the idea one gives a shit about the environment, society, mankind, or really anyone except yourself.

I do self-describe as Green Libertarian. Also, I already get that stuff in the world of the present, so no need for reorganization. You seem to keep missing the point that what I am trying to tell you is that YOU COULD TOO if you would focus on getting buff and learning how to play guitar and other related obviously attractive stuff like that.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Well I am glad the the discussion about the limits to growth devolved into a discussion of how one can get free shit and easy sex.

The modern progressive movement sure is doing a bang up job.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, as I clearly noted, I do not self identify as Progressive, but at least most of them aren’t hoping for an apocalypse to swing economic conditions in favor of their desired lifestyle. You always have to play the cards you got in the moment or strive to get a better hand. Complaining about the behavior of others will get you nowhere. If you don't believe me, listen to this Veteran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGIPRYUzgxg

[Mister Imperceptible]

I am playing my cards, we will see how buying and holding stocks with market cap to GDP at 151% and hoping against a regression to the mean works out for everybody. I was raised to be responsible and truthful, even if most people were not raised to be either.

This is distasteful. Have a nice day.

[7Wannabe5]

I agree. For what it's worth, I have a nerdy son around your age who is struggling a bit in the dating/romantic world himself, although for different reasons since he likely would identify as something like unto Progressive, so I truly want to help. I apologize if I came off too bluntly.

[7Wannabe5]

This is what I had in the back of my mind with my suggestion above, which I erred on the side of flip in expressing.

Humans offer an interesting example of sexual selection. In many traditional societies men go to considerable lengths to control the sexul and therefore reproductive potential of women, including enforced celibacy until marriage, dire penalties for adultery and even surgical procedures such as clitoridectomy. While such attempts can never have been fully successful, there's no doubt that historically they have limited the mate choices available to women.

Within the last few decades in western societies, however, women have, by and large, gained control of their reproduction. Liberated and armed with contraceptives, they now represent a powerful evolutionary force that is busy shaping the men of tomorrow. That's because, through the men they choose to father their children, women are manifesting in flesh the ideal mate (or as close as they can attain to it) that exists in their minds. Over evolutionary time this selection must and will change the nature of men. - "Here On Earth: A Natural History of the Planet" - Tim Flannery

So, I kind of chuckled when I read this, because I freely chose, actively seduced, a good-looking musician to father my two children. So, I was amusing myself by projecting future world where in situation of freedom/affluence, other females would likely make similar choice. Kind of like Lake Woebegone, "where the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

I also just finished reading an award winning sci-fi trilogy by Meg Elison that takes place in dystopian future where epidemic take out 90% of men and 99% of women and children. Quite a disturbing read since a good proportion of the remaining women end up being held and sold as sex slaves, and the female protagonist only survives by disguising herself as a young man and using her hidden guns to kill anybody who is threatening. So, perhaps, I was overly reactive to suggestion of being doomed to return of "traditional" society post-decline/collapse.

[iopsi]

You guys sure love pessimistic predictions.

There are no practical significant limits to growth.

[tonyedgecombe]

There are no practical significant limits to growth.

Other than living on a finite planet.

[iopsi]

Other than living on a finite planet.

Finite planet with more than enough for everybody tho.

Also in the far future humanity might not be limited to this planet's resources.

[ZAFCorrection]

@iopsi

People are pessimistic because that is the direction indicated by the available evidence. It might be possible to convince people otherwise if resorting to arguments other than buzzwordy tech boosting and 10% efficiency + 10% efficiency = 20% efficiency math.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, although I remain in the pessimistic camp, I would note that it is true that energy intensity/$GDP has gone down by around 40% over the last 30 years. This is because the service/creative component of GDP has increased greatly in most developed/affluent realms and also because efficiencies in materials and energy usage have improved. For instance, how easy it was to crush a beer can 1979 vs. 2019.

So, if and only if, you believe that population is near term trending towards peak, you could optimistic/rational tweak the numbers towards maintenance of status quo or even small average improvement of conditions for human population as a whole. However, this would definitely require some truly novel technology, like unto solar powered AI robots that are able to retrieve platinum dust from roadsides at extremely low cost.

I do think it is important to consider more optimistic possibilities within the framework of one's own lifestyle. For instance, there is nothing stopping an individual who has determined that $8000/year spending and/or proportional representative energy burn budget/materials hoard allowance is her fair share given desire not to contribute to tragedy of commons from striving to improve the quality of her own lifestyle within those boundaries by application of creativity, art, ingenuity, technology, education, carnival etc. etc. etc. And, whatever you can do for yourself, could also be copied by others. IOW, I think it is very important to maintain a joyous sense of abundance within the recognition of practical limits.

[Riggerjack]

I do think it is important to consider more optimistic possibilities within the framework of one's own lifestyle. For instance, there is nothing stopping an individual who has determined that $8000/year spending and/or proportional representative energy burn budget/materials hoard allowance is her fair share given desire not to contribute to tragedy of commons from striving to improve the quality of her own lifestyle within those boundaries by application of creativity, art, ingenuity, technology, education, carnival etc. etc. etc. And, whatever you can do for yourself, could also be copied by others. IOW, I think it is very important to maintain a joyous sense of abundance within the recognition of practical limits.

+1 This. So much this.

[jacob]

I often feel that our language (all the languages I know ... or think I know anyway) lacks the ability to distinguish between extrinsic and inherent pessimism/realism/optimism. This is important because they are not always the same although they are often presumed to be so.

For example, I am an extrinsic pessimist---as some of you might have noticed . I admit to focusing far more on "what could possibly go wrong" than I do on "imagine the fantastic possibilities ..."-kind of thinking. I aim towards realism (whatever the central balance is) but whereas I naturally gravitate towards getting more informed about worst-case scenarios, I have to put in deliberate effort to inform myself on best-case scenarios. (This is NOT to imply that "realism" implies that "the truth is somewhere in between". False-equivalence is possibly one of the dumbest fu#$%# ideas in recent history. This also implies that being a realist is really difficult because it requires a better/more evolved meta-perspective than merely splitting the difference. Anyway ... )

Yet, I also have a strong belief that I (personally) shall somehow overcome whatever challenge which makes me a die-hard inherent optimist. Here we could draw one of my beloved 2D charts of these two aspects and do some analysis. This gets us either 4 or 9 different "types" depending on the resolution. (Kinda like the D&D alignment system.)

Methinks that one's external orientation is about risk-control. As an extrinsic pessimist, I'd rather not-win than lose. Whereas an extrinsic optimist would rather lose than not-win.

Inherent orientation is about agency. Inherent optimists believe they have agency. Inherent pessimists have no agency.

This makes me a pessimistic optimist in the sense that I'm focused on the worst case scenarios yet have a strong belief that I (personally) can overcome them. This attitude is useful in activities like ERE (the extreme version) and research. I recall a professor once giving an honest speech soliciting for graduate students (It was memorable due to the honesty) noting that the required qualities were a talent for coding, a certain level of intelligence, but most importantly a high frustration tolerance. This was in a field that hasn't cracked its holy grail yet since 40 years of trying. It attracted a certain "type" of individuals. Pessimistic-optimists.

Consider in comparison the mainstay of techno-optimism that is software engineering. That's the field which has seen the highest level of progress in the past 30 years. Anyone's experience would be that as long as they can imagine/think of something, then it's possibly to built it. (Software holds the advantage of having far fewer constraints. You're not bound by the laws of nature, physical resources, or even convincing a recalcitrant public.). It's no wonder that optimistic-optimists rules Silicon Valley.

It seems likely that all the other types can be identified as well.

[jacob]

@bigato - When you say the great night of software ... do you mean like how "hello world" went from a 300 byte problem to something that occupies, I don't know, several Mb today? Stitch'n'glue/library-dependent programming that became possible because programmers can punt inefficiencies to increases in hardware speed?

Add: Overall observation is that I think that personal experiences in one's field of employment or wherever one spends most of one's formative/forming attitudes weighs heavily. For example, physics is largely a dead field where nothing of significance has happened since the 1970s. Hence extrinsic optimism is low due to the lack of progress-experiences. Computing (as I perceive it), especially consumer-level computing is something that has experienced revolutionary growth in the past 30 years even if most of the effort went into breadth rather than depth, i.e. we still have largely the same kind of capabilities that we already did in 1995 ... except now they're sufficiently user-friendly that any idiot can use them.

[7Wannabe5]

I think 3rd spectrum would be those who gain motivational energy by gazing into the abyss vs. those who lose motivational energy by gazing into the abyss. I am definitely in the 2nd category. I have no natural tendency to dwell on worst-case possibilities such as "becoming a bag lady" although I certainly have the capability of rationally, objectively, calculating the odds (very low unless I develop addiction or serious mental illness) and any attempt to force myself to dwell on such possibilities to boost motivation in the direction of opposing behavior will backfire and just cause me to become quite depressed and do something like eat too much pudding. However, there are other types, such as the Artist/INFP and sometimes the Scientist INTJ who gain the energy necessary to do some of their best work from such dark visions.

[iopsi]

@iopsi

People are pessimistic because that is the direction indicated by the available evidence. It might be possible to convince people otherwise if resorting to arguments other than buzzwordy tech boosting and 10% efficiency + 10% efficiency = 20% efficiency math.

To sustain, roughly, current economic prosperity for an indefinite time there are already all the needed technologies. There are studies that show how (and in how much time depending on policies) the world could be powered by 100% renewable energy even with the increased demand of a 10 billion population.

Even if the correct policies for a faster transition are not applied in most countries, eventually the combination of increasing cost of fossil fuels + falling cost of renewables (which are already pretty much competitive, so just the first condition is enough) will make the transition an economic inevitability.


Then, regarding growth itself, once the economy is almost fully circular there will be plenty of time for "buzzwordy" techs to be developed.

[ZAFCorrection]

I would be interested to see these studies which explain how we can successfully make a change to an electricity-based infrastructure (all internal combustion engines subbed out) and pay the cost of all the batteries which need to be swapped every 10 years and keep up with the demands of the current economic system (grow or die). No heretofore uninvented technologies allowed.

My guess is that some parts of that story (mining equipment and trucks, at least) would be unprecedented even at the scale of a prototype.