http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog/dirty-tackle/post/Sporting-Gijon-player-quits-football-refuses-hi?urn=sow-wp4024
QuoteAs Samuel Eto'o finishes up a transfer to Anzhi that will reportedly pay him more than €400,000 a week, 24-year-old Sporting Gijon defender Javi Poves has coincidentally announced that he's taking a moral stand and quitting the game.
From the Telegraph:
Quote"The more you know about football the more you realise it is all about money, that it is rotten and this takes away your enthusiasm," Poves told Spanish daily ABC's website (www.abc.es) on Wednesday.
"What point is there is earning 800 or 1000 euros if you know that you are obtaining it through the suffering of many people."
Daily El Pais reported that Poves refused to allow the club to pay him via a bank transfer, he said so the banks could not speculate with his money, and that he returned the keys to a car that had been provided to players by sponsors.
That's certainly a noble gesture. And one that has been praised as people in Spain protest high unemployment, debt and corruption. But if you're wondering why you've never heard of Poves, it's because he actually played for Sporting Gijon's B team in the Spanish third division. So when he says he wants to go back to school and to "offer his help socially," the fact that he was having a hard time cracking the first team might have made his decision a little easier. Regardless, Javi doesn't want you to start putting his face on T-shirts for this. He also warns of an ominous future...
Quote"I don't want Javi Poves to become an icon, I am just one more and I fight against inequality," he added.
"I want everyone to be equal and that we all unite and stop arguing over trivial matters and try to move forward. As it stands the world is preparing to destroy itself."
Interesting choice to refer to himself in the third person while attempting to downplay his actions, but Javi Poves thinks that the real icons of football should do more to help others.
Quote"There are certain personalities at a world level, Pele, Ronaldinho, (Lionel) Messi who are ambassadors for UNICEF and who on the face of it are very good, but they could do much more" he added.
"These people have such influence they should involve themselves in a much more direct way."
Well, if Leo Messi decides to follow Poves' lead and quit football in order to involve himself in a more direct way, football fans might make sure that it's Poves doing the suffering.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2011/08/11/fed-up-spanish-player-quits-football/
QuoteMADRID (AP) – Javi Poves finally achieved what most football players dream of, getting to taste the riches of the professional game.
For the 24-year-old Spaniard, that taste was sour enough to make him immediately walk away from the table.
Poves was a promising defender with Sporting Gijon and made his debut with the Spanish club's topflight team toward the end of last season. But instead of eyeing the future with promise, Poves' already disillusioned attitude toward the game only grew stronger as he got a firsthand look at being a top-level athlete.
So he made a decision that has turned heads all over Spain: he strode into the offices of Sporting in July and quit.
''It's all about money and players are just playing to distract people from what's happening in the real world,'' Poves told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. ''These things started driving me crazy and gradually I came to this decision.''
Poves' pronouncement stunned many in Spain, where football helps unite a country that is staggering through an economic crisis with unemployment at more than 20 percent. The national team is the World Cup and European champion and Spain's league advertises itself as the world's best thanks to clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid.
''It surprised me to see him retire so soon because he had all the qualities to keep playing,'' teammate David Barral, who shared a room with Poves on the road, was quoted as saying in La Nueva Espana newspaper. ''He has his own ideas and I have mine. But I support him because he's my friend, he's got a great heart.''
El Pais newspaper labeled him ''The Angry Footballer,'' while other media outlets called him anti-football because of his rejection of the game.
For Poves, however, it was simply a matter of putting his own values above money.
''My motivation in training fell off and the club wasn't happy for me to continue on like that. So I quit because of my ideas which, agreed, aren't so common (in football),'' Poves said.
He is now living at his parents home in Madrid, where he is mapping out his new future.
Poves made it clear that his decision wasn't meant to be a political statement, and that he doesn't want to be associated with the larger protest movements that have attracted angry young Spaniards - labeled as the ''indignados'' - who are frustrated by the lack of future prospects due to the dragging economic crisis.
''I'm just one person more. But because I'm a football player this decision causes more repercussions,'' Poves said. ''It's not normal but I have to accept it.''
In a week when Real Madrid drew headlines for signing a 7-year-old prospect, Poves said part of the reason he quit was because of the values young players are being taught by the clubs themselves.
''Players are seen as egoists who fight day-in, day-out just to make more money,'' Poves said. ''But that's not the players' fault. They've been programmed, educated to believe that and nothing else. They instill these values from a young age.''
Poves said Sporting teammates and officials - including coach Manolo Preciado - had been fair with him despite his outspoken views.
While the majority of his teammates didn't agree with his perspective, Poves' decision has still filtered into the changing room chatter going into the new season.
''Inside the locker room it's been pretty much a revolution this year,'' Poves said.
He said he now plans to travel to the Middle East, most likely Iran, and read more books. He said he is currently sifting through the Torah.
''Society is telling us not to believe in anything. So everyone thinks the only God alive is themselves,'' he said. ''I don't know if there is a God or not, but we can garner many important things from religion.
''(But) it's true, I'm going through a confusing time right now.''
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
About as stupid as Quinn Pitcock blowing a promising NFL career on a video game addiction.
The article missed the part where he clamoured for bankers to be slaughtered. :P
I'm serious, he did say that.
Quote from: The Larch on August 12, 2011, 07:39:43 AM
The article missed the part where he clamoured for bankers to be slaughtered. :P
I'm serious, he did say that.
Considering how the banks keep fucking our economies and forcing expensive bailouts time after time, I'm left wondering if it wouldn't be fit and proper. "If you fail, you also lose your fucking head." That way at least they'd be earning their salaries.
Nationalize the banks. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 12, 2011, 07:39:43 AM
The article missed the part where he clamoured for bankers to be slaughtered. :P
I'm serious, he did say that.
Considering how the banks keep fucking our economies and forcing expensive bailouts time after time, I'm left wondering if it wouldn't be fit and proper. "If you fail, you also lose your fucking head." That way at least they'd be earning their salaries.
Lends a whole new meaning to "cutting the payroll" and "slashing salaries".
How cute.
People used to complain about that in American sports all the time. Now we are all beaten into submission.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 12, 2011, 07:39:43 AM
The article missed the part where he clamoured for bankers to be slaughtered. :P
I'm serious, he did say that.
Considering how the banks keep fucking our economies and forcing expensive bailouts time after time, I'm left wondering if it wouldn't be fit and proper. "If you fail, you also lose your fucking head." That way at least they'd be earning their salaries.
Nationalize the banks. :hmm:
Real banks are doing quite well. Our problem on that front are some of the regional savings institutions, run by politicians.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
He wears a mullet. :yucky:
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
The potential for production of goods and services is finite and relative to the number of potential productive workers modified by their production efficiency.
No matter how much currency you print the price for the exchange for goods and services remains relative to the total amount of currency (and of course individual item supply and demand) in circulation compared to the goods and services available.
Thus, if one individual commands a larger than average share of the available currency, another must by simple definition command less than average.
Sure, the sum can be increased by improving efficiency or the number of workers, but this doesn't change the basic dynamic.
Now, I have no doubt that I could be missing some crucial component here that makes the economy NOT a zero-sum game, but I honestly don't see what that would be.
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
The economy has a lot more to it than currency. Really, focusing on currency as some kind of placeholder for economic activity is a little...well, wrong.
You don't even need to have currency at all to engage in economic activity...
QuoteThe potential for production of goods and services is finite
To the extent that this makes any sense, it is demonstrably wrong. The potential for production of goods and services is not at all finite in any meaningful sense.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:20:57 AM
The economy has a lot more to it than currency. Really, focusing on currency as some kind of placeholder for economic activity is a little...well, wrong.
You don't even need to have currency at all to engage in economic activity...
QuoteThe potential for production of goods and services is finite
To the extent that this makes any sense, it is demonstrably wrong. The potential for production of goods and services is not at all finite in any meaningful sense.
Can you add hours to the day?
This footballer can trade in one of his work hours for roughly 600 hours of those of his averagely earning peers. That is the gist of the issue.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:20:15 AM
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
Quite possible. :)
Though I will admit to some curiosity: What exactly are, in your opinion, my views on race?
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:20:15 AM
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
Quite possible. :)
Though I will admit to some curiosity: What exactly are, in your opinion, my views on race?
I don't know if I've tried to analyze what you write very often, because your views on race come across as in general racist, which is enough to know that there isn't much reason to give them further thought. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:20:15 AM
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
Quite possible. :)
Though I will admit to some curiosity: What exactly are, in your opinion, my views on race?
I don't know if I've tried to analyze what you write very often, because your views on race come across as in general racist, which is enough to know that there isn't much reason to give them further thought. :)
Yet you still claim you can quantify them. Interesting. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
The people making up for it are those who can afford soccer tickets and presumably they feel they are getting their money's worth.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:20:15 AM
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
Quite possible. :)
Though I will admit to some curiosity: What exactly are, in your opinion, my views on race?
I don't know if I've tried to analyze what you write very often, because your views on race come across as in general racist, which is enough to know that there isn't much reason to give them further thought. :)
Yet you still claim you can quantify them. Interesting. :hmm:
How about this - you HAVE views on race, while most of us don't.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
Yet you still claim you can quantify them. Interesting. :hmm:
:yes: It is sort of like when someone starts talking about men coexisting with dinosaurs. I may not know the details of exactly what he believes, but I can stop listening as I know he is wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:34:27 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:25:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:20:15 AM
Slargos views on race : Slargos views on economics
United by wrongness.
Quite possible. :)
Though I will admit to some curiosity: What exactly are, in your opinion, my views on race?
I don't know if I've tried to analyze what you write very often, because your views on race come across as in general racist, which is enough to know that there isn't much reason to give them further thought. :)
Yet you still claim you can quantify them. Interesting. :hmm:
How about this - you HAVE views on race, while most of us don't.
Really? I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:43:17 AM
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I have views on people, and on cultures. I worry not a whit about "race".
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 11:43:04 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:39:29 AM
Yet you still claim you can quantify them. Interesting. :hmm:
:yes: It is sort of like when someone starts talking about men coexisting with dinosaurs. I may not know the details of exactly what he believes, but I can stop listening as I know he is wrong.
Of that there's little doubt. You don't need to know anything to know that you know. It's pretty funny. :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:43:17 AM
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I have views on people, and on cultures. I worry not a whit about "race".
are natives a culture or race? :unsure: :P
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:43:17 AM
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I have views on people, and on cultures. I worry not a whit about "race".
I believe that you believe that. But how is it possible to not have a view on something you know exists?
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Perhaps it's just his personal thing. When ever he sells a cabinet the person he sells it to loses. Or he loses. Or the maker loses. Someone loses.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:23:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:20:57 AM
The economy has a lot more to it than currency. Really, focusing on currency as some kind of placeholder for economic activity is a little...well, wrong.
You don't even need to have currency at all to engage in economic activity...
QuoteThe potential for production of goods and services is finite
To the extent that this makes any sense, it is demonstrably wrong. The potential for production of goods and services is not at all finite in any meaningful sense.
Can you add hours to the day?
We don't need to add any hours to the day to increase production though - we've had the same 24 hours throughout human history,and yet production has increased immensely, and continues to do so.
QuoteThis footballer can trade in one of his work hours for roughly 600 hours of those of his averagely earning peers. That is the gist of the issue.
No, the gist is that his peers choose to use an hour of their labor to pay for him to entertain them. How can you (or him for that matter) argues that this is unfair somehow, when they do so of their own free will?
If they do not think his entertainment value is sufficient for the price he charges for it, they won't watch him. You (and him) are arguing that basically they should not be allowed to trade their labor for the product they WANT to purchase!
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:48:25 AM
Of that there's little doubt. You don't need to know anything to know that you know. It's pretty funny. :D
I need to know something: that you post racist crap at every opportunity.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 12:02:13 PM
Perhaps it's just his personal thing. When ever he sells a cabinet the person he sells it to loses. Or he loses. Or the maker loses. Someone loses.
Clearly the customer in this instance. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 12:08:49 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:48:25 AM
Of that there's little doubt. You don't need to know anything to know that you know. It's pretty funny. :D
I need to know something: that you post racist crap at every opportunity.
Does it bother you?
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:25:50 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:23:20 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
the economy IS a zero-sum game
Wow.
Yeah, that's gonna leave a mark.
:lol:
Not really.
You're right; you do seem to revel in your own ignorance.
No, I'm simply not as terrified of being wrong as you are.
:hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:30:32 PM
No, I'm simply not as terrified of being wrong as you are.
That's good. I'd hate to think that you live your life in perpetual fear.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:30:32 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:25:50 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:23:20 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 12, 2011, 12:08:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
the economy IS a zero-sum game
Wow.
Yeah, that's gonna leave a mark.
:lol:
Not really.
You're right; you do seem to revel in your own ignorance.
No, I'm simply not as terrified of being wrong as you are.
Perhaps you should be... :hmm:
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:31:03 PM
:hmm:
Tell me: When was the last time you disagreed with someone over something that could actually cost you anything?
There's no real risk to you in joining the mob since I'm an acceptable target. Would you even dare voicing an unpopular opinion?
Being right is fine thing to be. You should try it. :)
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:31:03 PM
:hmm:
Tell me: When was the last time you disagreed with someone over something that could actually cost you anything?
There's no real risk to you in joining the mob since I'm an acceptable target. Would you even dare voicing an unpopular opinion?
:lol: Got it. It's all about your martyrdom complex, then.
More seriously, though, I do applaud Slargos for consistently challenging the majority. Without him, who would stand out as the voice for racism, zero-sum economic beliefs and the benefits of low-quality kitchenware?
I eagerly await his challenging the validity of gravity.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:31:03 PM
:hmm:
Tell me: When was the last time you disagreed with someone over something that could actually cost you anything?
There's no real risk to you in joining the mob since I'm an acceptable target. Would you even dare voicing an unpopular opinion?
I'm a lawyer. I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 12:43:44 PM
I'm a lawyer. I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.
The crown still won't budget for a building, eh?
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 12:43:44 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:31:03 PM
:hmm:
Tell me: When was the last time you disagreed with someone over something that could actually cost you anything?
There's no real risk to you in joining the mob since I'm an acceptable target. Would you even dare voicing an unpopular opinion?
I'm a lawyer. I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.
I wasn't asking you. ;)
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:46:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 12:43:44 PM
I'm a lawyer. I am frequently the lone voice in the wilderness in court.
The crown still won't budget for a building, eh?
:D
Quote from: Habbaku on August 12, 2011, 12:43:30 PM
More seriously, though, I do applaud Slargos for consistently challenging the majority. Without him, who would stand out as the voice for racism, zero-sum economic beliefs and the benefits of low-quality kitchenware?
I eagerly await his challenging the validity of gravity.
:lol:
Cute.
At least Raz has a bit of imagination. You're a shit tzu who thinks he's a bulldog. :console:
I wish I had Slargos' bravery. :(
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Slargos is, of course, clueless. That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101. Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition.
The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely. However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly. If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Slargos is, of course, clueless. That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101. Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition.
The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely. However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly. If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.
That's okay-- we'll always have Democrats here to keep our economy from reaching its potential :)
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Slargos is, of course, clueless. That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101. Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition.
The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely. However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly. If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.
Zero sum doesn't necessitate constant sum.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Slargos is, of course, clueless. That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101. Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition.
The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely. However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly. If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.
Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.
So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:01:30 PM
Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.
So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:05:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:01:30 PM
Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.
So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.
That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...
So eventually we'll all have infinite wealth? Cool.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:05:25 PM
I haven't died yet in my life, therefore I won't die in the future. :rolleyes:
That's a more compelling argument when put forth by grumbler.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
:rolleyes:
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.
That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...
Well, some mathematical understanding would indiciate that indefinite exponential growth is a bit impossible for any physical phenomena. If material wealth grew exponentially without a limit, then eventually each person would own entire galaxies. That seems unlikely, since it would be impractical to manage all these properties when you can only travel at the speed of light.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 01:08:07 PM
So eventually we'll all have infinite wealth? Cool.
Of course. Someday each of us will have our own staff of slave robots who do all of our work.
And our own planet.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
:rolleyes:
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.
That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...
Well, some mathematical understanding would indiciate that indefinite exponential growth is a bit impossible for any physical phenomena. If material wealth grew exponentially without a limit, then eventually each person would own entire galaxies. That seems unlikely, since it would be impractical to manage all these properties when you can only travel at the speed of light.
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10
100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
So I guess that lack of exponential growth has been established, and we're just arguing about parameters now.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:22:10 PM
So I guess that lack of exponential growth has been established, and we're just arguing about parameters now.
:rolleyes:
What has not been established is that limits to growth will be reached before the sun becomes a red giant and all life on earth is extinguished.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:22:10 PM
So I guess that lack of exponential growth has been established, and we're just arguing about parameters now.
That is why when I started this discussion I specifically said something like "....growth for all practical purposes is not limited..." or something like that.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?
Yes, the period that covers the last three hundred generations of humanity has seen steady economic growth.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?
Yes?
Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?
Yes?
Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Do you have any theory as to why that is?
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:22:10 PM
So I guess that lack of exponential growth has been established, and we're just arguing about parameters now.
That is why when I started this discussion I specifically said something like "....growth for all practical purposes is not limited..." or something like that.
Even that qualifier is debatable, though. For example, China and India are growing. Americans are saying, sure, no problem, China growing economically helps our economy as well, free trade is king.
However, as China and India grew, they increased the demand for oil, which is a pretty key and pretty limited resource. The price of oil grew, and our economy took a hit because of it. So how non-zero-sum is the world economy after all?
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:22:10 PM
So I guess that lack of exponential growth has been established, and we're just arguing about parameters now.
That is why when I started this discussion I specifically said something like "....growth for all practical purposes is not limited..." or something like that.
Even that qualifier is debatable, though. For example, China and India are growing. Americans are saying, sure, no problem, China growing economically helps our economy as well, free trade is king.
However, as China and India grew, they increased the demand for oil, which is a pretty key and pretty limited resource. The price of oil grew, and our economy took a hit because of it. So how non-zero-sum is the world economy after all?
But oil isn't a "pretty limited resource". It is only limited at any given price point and technology.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:01:30 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:53:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 07:35:31 AM
I can certainly sympathise with his thoughts. No matter how you want to spin it, the economy IS a zero-sum game, and for one person to make the kind of lol-wages the pro footballers make, thousands of others have to make up for it.
Uhhh, yeah....the problem is that the economy is not a zero-sum game, no matter how you want to spin it.
You need some basic econ 101. Start with the concept of specialization.
Slargos is, of course, clueless. That said, I have a feeling that economy is not as non-zero-sum as we're lead to believe in Econ 101. Ultimately, material resources are limited, even if we haven't yet run into that problem, and so are positional goods by definition.
The common assumption is that our economy can grow expontentially indefinitely. However, it may be that economy grows according to a logistic model rather than exponential, and that after some period of near-exponential growth we will hit a constraint and grow only very slowly. If we ever hit a constraint, then a lot of the assumptions on which our economic theory stands will go out the window.
Yes, the Limits to Growth argument.
So far almost 40 years of evidence have shown it to be false, but you know, maybe the next 40 will prove it right.
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
In fairness to Slargos, the universe is finite and if heat death is our fate, protons will eventually decay. The only infinite growth models rely absolutely on a collapsing universe, and aren't widely accepted.
So there are some hard limits to growth. :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
:rolleyes:
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.
That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...
Well, some mathematical understanding would indiciate that indefinite exponential growth is a bit impossible for any physical phenomena. If material wealth grew exponentially without a limit, then eventually each person would own entire galaxies. That seems unlikely, since it would be impractical to manage all these properties when you can only travel at the speed of light.
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Oh FU.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2011, 02:20:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:14:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
:rolleyes:
There is plenty of evidence to indicate that you will die.
That there is a hard cap to economic growth however...
Well, some mathematical understanding would indiciate that indefinite exponential growth is a bit impossible for any physical phenomena. If material wealth grew exponentially without a limit, then eventually each person would own entire galaxies. That seems unlikely, since it would be impractical to manage all these properties when you can only travel at the speed of light.
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Oh FU.
:nelson:
As long as we live on a planet with finite resources, there cannot be infinite economic growth.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:11:09 PM
But oil isn't a "pretty limited resource". It is only limited at any given price point and technology.
Most everything is limited at any given price and technology, so I'm not sure what your statement is saying other than that supply curves exist. However, not every supply curve is the same. Supply curve for oil appears to be quite inelastic, at least in the short term, given how sharply oil price is rising due to demand growth.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:11:09 PM
But oil isn't a "pretty limited resource". It is only limited at any given price point and technology.
Most everything is limited at any given price and technology, so I'm not sure what your statement is saying other than that supply curves exist. However, not every supply curve is the same. Supply curve for oil appears to be quite inelastic, at least in the short term, given how sharply oil price is rising due to demand growth.
But it's much more elastic in the long term.
Short term price fluctuations do not equal a "limited resource".
Quote from: Bluebook on August 12, 2011, 02:26:51 PM
As long as we live on a planet with finite resources, there cannot be infinite economic growth.
The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun. But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun. But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.
Oh come on, you cannot be serious.
Those X kgs of mass cannot be transformed into whatever commodity that is needed. Take drinking water as an example, that tends to be a rather desired commodity, and the amount of drinking water accessible is definitively not an infinite resource.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 12, 2011, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
The earth only has finite resources in that it has roughly X kg of mass, and receives Y amount of heat from the sun. But these limits are so far removed from what is being consumed that it's like talking about the heat death of the universe.
Oh come on, you cannot be serious.
Those X kgs of mass cannot be transformed into whatever commodity that is needed. Take drinking water as an example, that tends to be a rather desired commodity, and the amount of drinking water accessible is definitively not an infinite resource.
Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.
You've heard of wastewater purification? Desalinization? Increased efficiencies in industrial applications?
Not to mention GDP is not tied very strongly to the production of any single, or any bundle, of physical resources.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:41:27 PM
Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.
Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?
I think what Beeb is discounting is most of human history. The paradigm we live in now has been in force for only the last two centuries or so. For most of human history, per capita economic growth has been virtually flat. Assuming that the last two centuries will now be the rule going forward for many millenia, rather than an exceptional blip that will eventually exhaust itself, seems overly optimistic to me.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 12, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:41:27 PM
Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.
Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?
Not really.
People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine. When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:44:50 PM
I think what Beeb is discounting is most of human history. The paradigm we live in now has been in force for only the last two centuries or so. For most of human history, per capita economic growth has been virtually flat. Assuming that the last two centuries will now be the rule going forward for many millenia, rather than an exceptional blip that will eventually exhaust itself, seems overly optimistic to me.
Not at all - on any of your points.
I'm not discounting human history. For most of human history per capita economic growth has been lower than now, but NOT flat. And I am aware of that.
And of course what has changed in the last (two centuries? more than that - more like 300-400) isn't a sudden influx of new resources (though there has been some of that), but rather technological and societal advances that have dramatically increased human productivity. And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: Bluebook on August 12, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:41:27 PM
Again - at present drinking water is only limited at a given price and technology.
Yes, but that is not really an argument. When a glass of water will cost $ 10 000 it will presumably put a dent on the overall economic growth, dont you think?
Not really.
People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine. When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.
You're ignoring his point.
It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries. Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer. You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:46:46 PMNot really.
People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine. When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.
My example was of cource based on current prizes, so you forgot to add inflation to the cost of that glass of water. Thus, when our garbageman has to pay $2 billion for a glass of water, I believe my point about lack of economic growth still stands.
Your point about resources only being limited by price and technology is flawed, and you are not allowed to take "wishful thinking"-types of inventions and technology into the equation.
Quote from: Bluebook on August 12, 2011, 02:55:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:46:46 PMNot really.
People thought $100/bbl oil would send us into a Mad-Max style apocalypse, but we've kept chugging along just fine. When the annual salary of a garbageman is $10billion due to inflation and economic growth, I don't think he'll blink an eye at his $10k glass of water.
My example was of cource based on current prizes, so you forgot to add inflation to the cost of that glass of water. Thus, when our garbageman has to pay $2 billion for a glass of water, I believe my point about lack of economic growth still stands.
Your point about resources only being limited by price and technology is flawed, and you are not allowed to take "wishful thinking"-types of inventions and technology into the equation.
Why is it "wishful thinking" to assume that long-standing trends will continue?
You're right in that if all technological advancement (and societal advancement) stops as of tomorrow, August 13th, then yes we will eventuall may max out GDP.
But you might as well say the same thing if the Rapture happens tomorrow.
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
And this is not to say we shouldn't worry about any individual situation - that we shouldn't worry about running out of arable land in Sweden, or worry about the ozone layer or global warming.
It's just this big picture argument that there is a "limit to growth" that has been consistently predicted, and consistently found wrong, over decades.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.
There is no reason to assume that it will just continue chugging along either. Just because humanity broke through the constraint that limited it for millenia doesn't mean that we won't eventually reach a new constraint (and not in a hundred generations' time, but considerably sooner).
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
Now you're just creating a strawman. Who says it's going to suddenly stop? In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops. It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 01:25:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:19:54 PM
:rolleyes:
And physics tells us the universe the universe will end in a heat death once entropy has worked its magic. But something that is 10100 years away is pretty safely irrelevant.
There is no evidence that steady economic growth can not continue for hundreds of generations to come.
Has there been a period of steady economic growth that has lasted for hundreds of generations?
Yes?
Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy? Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history). The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology. Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution. An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword. An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC. Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier. Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 03:12:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.
There is no reason to assume that it will just continue chugging along either. Just because humanity broke through the constraint that limited it for millenia doesn't mean that we won't eventually reach a new constraint (and not in a hundred generations' time, but considerably sooner).
No constraint that limited us for millenia. There's been a slow but steady improvement since the dawn of history.
This thread is no longer fun.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
Now you're just creating a strawman. Who says it's going to suddenly stop? In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops. It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.
You're the one atatcking a straw man. How is to say it would start to gradually peter out tomorrow?
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
Now you're just creating a strawman. Who says it's going to suddenly stop? In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops. It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.
It's not even a true statement. Technology has
not improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. It's jumped radically in the last 500 years. Before that, it sometimes declined or simply stopped. In some places like Australia technology has not improved at all over thousands of years. before Europeans showed up, the Australians still hadn't figured out the bow and arrow. Their technology was pretty much the same as it was when their ancestors showed up 40,000 years ago.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy? Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history). The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology. Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution. An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword. An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC. Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier. Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.
Notice how carefully you needed to cherry pick your examples though.
Yes, an Italian would notice a difference between the height of the Roman Empire, and it's immediate fall.
But even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.
You're focusing too much on the big picture. There are any number of inventions and developments that have improved human productivity, and thus 'per capita GDP'. Even agriculture wasn't one sudden development - no various crops were slowly developed, then refined. cropgrowing techniques were improved. Irrigation was invented, and improved.
They moved from bronze, to iron. They refined how swords, how ploughs, were made. Horses were domesticated, then saddles, then stirrups.
Improvements in literacy assisted the spread of ideas and the storing of knowledge.
Really guys - this can not be surprising information to you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:24:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
Now you're just creating a strawman. Who says it's going to suddenly stop? In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops. It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.
It's not even a true statement. Technology has not improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. It's jumped radically in the last 500 years. Before that, it sometimes declined or simply stopped. In some places like Australia technology has not improved at all over thousands of years. before Europeans showed up, the Australians still hadn't figured out the bow and arrow. Their technology was pretty much the same as it was when their ancestors showed up 40,000 years ago.
You're looking at it through a very European point of view.
The aborigines may not have invented the bow and arrow, but they absolutely imrpved their skills and tools to deal with the situation in Australia. Aborigine history is far from mystrong suit, but they either invented the boomerang, or refined it to its highest and most developed point on all the earth.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
I think that this is wrong. I'd be suprised anyone would argue it has improved at a consistent rate, and it is debatable whether it has even consistently improved (there is evidence of some periods of decline).
Per capita production exponentially increasing through technological improvements is a product of the industrial revolution. There may not be many reasons to think that will stop in the near term, but especially if we stay on this planet, there are obvious limits. That isn't to say that we aren't going to hit the limits in our lifetimes, but there are definitely reasons to think it will be hit in far less than hundreds of generations.
I'd be careful with the $100 per barrel example BB. You're forgetting most of mankind is poorer than the poorest Languishite.
A full third of mankind is fed by fertilizers made with a century-old process that uses copious amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen is however very expensive to isolate so we extract it from natural gas. This is just one way in which a surge in fossil fuel prices means billions might go hungry. And when hunger strikes, as shown this year, even governments are toppled.
No, I'm pretty sure an English peasant lived pretty much the same way over those 400 years. His tools and methods were largely unchanged. He still had wooden and sometimes Iron tools, he was still illiterate, and still faced regular warfare where assholes would ride ever his fields and burn his home down. I'm focusing on the big picture because it's a big picture issue. And it's not a steady growth thing. Wealth rose and fell based on lots of factors. Sometimes technologies were simply lost, and whole civilizations collapsed. Sometimes they never really came back.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:27:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:32:58 PM
Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy? Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history). The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology. Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution. An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword. An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC. Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier. Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.
Notice how carefully you needed to cherry pick your examples though.
Yes, an Italian would notice a difference between the height of the Roman Empire, and it's immediate fall.
But even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.
You're focusing too much on the big picture. There are any number of inventions and developments that have improved human productivity, and thus 'per capita GDP'. Even agriculture wasn't one sudden development - no various crops were slowly developed, then refined. cropgrowing techniques were improved. Irrigation was invented, and improved.
They moved from bronze, to iron. They refined how swords, how ploughs, were made. Horses were domesticated, then saddles, then stirrups.
Improvements in literacy assisted the spread of ideas and the storing of knowledge.
Really guys - this can not be surprising information to you.
Yeah, major discoveries were not forgotten, or at least forgotten in ways that were still easily rediscovered.
That doesn't change the fact that a 1st or 2nd century roman probably had a better diet and quality of living than anyone coming later by more than a millenium. To stay with the Roman example, there is evidence that ancient Romans were taller than anyone preceding the modern age, and the size of domesticated animals steadily decreased as the Roman empire eroded (bottoming out in the dark ages).
In places like Babylon in the 2nd millenium BC there was a literary culture preserved as much regarding the private thoughts of some of the leading citizens as european societies from 1100 years ago. Literacy was definitely not a steady march toward univerality.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 12, 2011, 03:33:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years. Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?
I think that this is wrong. I'd be suprised anyone would argue it has improved at a consistent rate, and it is debatable whether it has even consistently improved (there is evidence of some periods of decline).
Per capita production exponentially increasing through technological improvements is a product of the industrial revolution. There may not be many reasons to think that will stop in the near term, but especially if we stay on this planet, there are obvious limits. That isn't to say that we aren't going to hit the limits in our lifetimes, but there are definitely reasons to think it will be hit in far less than hundreds of generations.
'consistently' would be a better choice of words than 'consistent'.
If you took a chart of estimated per capita GDP from 4000BC to today you'd see a squiggly line that has plenty of noise year to year, but that generally has an overall steady increase over time (and a more rapid increase the last few hundred years).
Raz - read into it - I'm positive you'll find that little by little living conditions improved throughout the middle agres in Britain.
Iorm, I present to you an article from today's G&M entitled "Are High Oil Prices That Bad Really?":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/are-high-oil-prices-that-bad-really/article2127627/
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:29:59 PM
You're looking at it through a very European point of view.
The aborigines may not have invented the bow and arrow, but they absolutely imrpved their skills and tools to deal with the situation in Australia. Aborigine history is far from mystrong suit, but they either invented the boomerang, or refined it to its highest and most developed point on all the earth.
They had this technology for thousands of years. There was no appreciable growth in either technology or living standards. Throwing sticks are not Unique to Australia. They are well known in Africa. Ancient Egyptians had them. I doubt Aborigines in 5,000 years ago were any more "Skilled" then ones that lived 7000 years ago. I'm actually looking at it through a non-Euro-centric way. While technology rapidly increased over the last 500 years in Europe, it did not in many other parts of the world. To assume that this is norm rather then the exception seems silly to me since it does not reflect what is known about human beings. Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years. The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:27:37 PMBut even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.
I actually generally agree with you, although I'm not sure a decrease in Britain's crime rate between 800 and 1200 is the best indicator of technological progress. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:46:38 PM
They had this technology for thousands of years. There was no appreciable growth in either technology or living standards. Throwing sticks are not Unique to Australia. They are well known in Africa. Ancient Egyptians had them. I doubt Aborigines in 5,000 years ago were any more "Skilled" then ones that lived 7000 years ago. I'm actually looking at it through a non-Euro-centric way. While technology rapidly increased over the last 500 years in Europe, it did not in many other parts of the world. To assume that this is norm rather then the exception seems silly to me since it does not reflect what is known about human beings. Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years. The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.
You're wrong. But I can not spend the time to find the proof that you're wrong this afternoon - it's a sunny Friday afternoon.
Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime. I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws. Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover. Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood. There has to be finite number of physical laws. I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:53:02 PM
Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime. I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws. Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover. Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood. There has to be finite number of physical laws. I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.
Theoretical physical limits are so far from where we are today it's really not helpful to mention, much as it's not helpful that the earth will be consumed by the sun when it becomes a red supergiant. Yes, it's true, but it's so far away to be meaningless.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:55:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:53:02 PM
Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime. I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws. Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover. Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood. There has to be finite number of physical laws. I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.
Theoretical physical limits are so far from where we are today it's really not helpful to mention, much as it's not helpful that the earth will be consumed by the sun when it becomes a red supergiant. Yes, it's true, but it's so far away to be meaningless.
Really? How do you know? Physics could be a closed book for all we know a hundred years from now. There is no way to know when that will occur.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:55:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:53:02 PM
Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime. I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws. Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover. Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood. There has to be finite number of physical laws. I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.
Theoretical physical limits are so far from where we are today it's really not helpful to mention, much as it's not helpful that the earth will be consumed by the sun when it becomes a red supergiant. Yes, it's true, but it's so far away to be meaningless.
Really? How do you know? Physics could be a closed book for all we know a hundred years from now. There is no way to know when that will occur.
Because we know a great deal about physics. We know what a great many theoretical limits are. We aren't particularily close to many of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:55:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:53:02 PM
Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime. I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws. Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover. Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood. There has to be finite number of physical laws. I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.
Theoretical physical limits are so far from where we are today it's really not helpful to mention, much as it's not helpful that the earth will be consumed by the sun when it becomes a red supergiant. Yes, it's true, but it's so far away to be meaningless.
Really? How do you know? Physics could be a closed book for all we know a hundred years from now. There is no way to know when that will occur.
It's a bridge too far to assume that total physical knowledge means an end of progressively better application of that knowledge, and wider-spread application of that knowledge.
Further, are we talking purely about technological advance, or economic progress as originally? The two are linked, but economic progress could continue without any further technological advance.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Iorm, I present to you an article from today's G&M entitled "Are High Oil Prices That Bad Really?":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/are-high-oil-prices-that-bad-really/article2127627/
Let me reply with another link: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138900885/libyan-rebels-wage-mad-max-war-in-the-mountains
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Iorm, I present to you an article from today's G&M entitled "Are High Oil Prices That Bad Really?":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/are-high-oil-prices-that-bad-really/article2127627/
Let me reply with another link: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138900885/libyan-rebels-wage-mad-max-war-in-the-mountains
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Because we know a great deal about physics. We know what a great many theoretical limits are. We aren't particularily close to many of them.
I suspect this would surprise those working on Grand Unified theories.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Because we know a great deal about physics. We know what a great many theoretical limits are. We aren't particularily close to many of them.
I suspect this would surprise those working on Grand Unified theories.
Are you being obtuse?
We know a lot about, say, thermodynamics. Those working on a Grand Unified theory are trying to determine how thermodynamics can be matched up with magnetism and gravity and other explainable phenomenon.
There's nothing to indicate that our knowledge of thermodynamics is wrong, just that we may not understand all of it's intricacies.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:01:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Iorm, I present to you an article from today's G&M entitled "Are High Oil Prices That Bad Really?":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/are-high-oil-prices-that-bad-really/article2127627/
Let me reply with another link: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138900885/libyan-rebels-wage-mad-max-war-in-the-mountains
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Indeed the article itself doesn't use the word "oil" at all! :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Maybe some arrows will do the trick: High fuel prices -> high food cost (via fertilizer, transportation etc) -> hunger -> uprisings -> Actual Mad Max.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
'consistently' would be a better choice of words than 'consistent'.
If you took a chart of estimated per capita GDP from 4000BC to today you'd see a squiggly line that has plenty of noise year to year, but that generally has an overall steady increase over time (and a more rapid increase the last few hundred years).
The last few hundred would comprise the industrial revolution (if we can be somewhat generous regarding its start date).
I don't agree that you would see an overall line that has a generally positive slope from 4000BC to say the Renaissance when plotting per capita income. There were improvements and new discoveries, but these were offset as people moved into more marginal land and had to support larger populations on land that was cultivated. Basically a Malthusian world.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Raz - read into it - I'm positive you'll find that little by little living conditions improved throughout the middle agres in Britain.
From what I've read they did not do so consistently. The concept of technological progress was not even understood at the time. In those days, people still believed their ancestors lived better then they did and humanity would continue to decline. The population did rise for a while in the Middle Ages, due to environmental factors. When those factors reversed, the population declined rather dramatically.
If what you say is true, then we would expect to see certain phenomenon. For instance, the gradual decline in famines. However, this did not happen before the industrial revolution.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:08:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Maybe some arrows will do the trick: High fuel prices -> high food cost (via fertilizer, transportation etc) -> hunger -> uprisings -> Actual Mad Max.
Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:08:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Maybe some arrows will do the trick: High fuel prices -> high food cost (via fertilizer, transportation etc) -> hunger -> uprisings -> Actual Mad Max.
Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices? :hmm:
It is a very, very significant factor. Take a look at this, from a report by the World Bank:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldbank.org%2Ffoodcrisis%2Ffoodpricewatch%2Ffigure4.jpg&hash=5c017c63a7ee034735d6d629a0ad2a906ef6b0ab)
They've raised the price of Reese's cups, I can tell you.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:33:35 PM
Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices? :hmm:
Food prices surely have. That's one of the root causes for all the rebellions in the Middle East this year.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:08:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:03:08 PM
:hmm:
Did you post the right link? That one doesn't even mention the price of oil...
Maybe some arrows will do the trick: High fuel prices -> high food cost (via fertilizer, transportation etc) -> hunger -> uprisings -> Actual Mad Max.
Are you arguing that the fighting in Libya is caused by high fuel prices? :hmm:
It is a very, very significant factor. Take a look at this, from a report by the World Bank:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldbank.org%2Ffoodcrisis%2Ffoodpricewatch%2Ffigure4.jpg&hash=5c017c63a7ee034735d6d629a0ad2a906ef6b0ab)
But what does that have to do with the Libyan revolution? :hmm:
And correlation is not causation. :contract:
Again, food prices are the main reason behind the uprisings.
And it's not mere correlation. I already explained how high fuel prices increase fertilizer cost. Then there's transportation. Also fuel cost for operating tractors, combines, etc. Not to mention encouraging to dedicate arable land to biofuel instead of food production.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 04:54:00 PM
Again, food prices are the main reason behind the uprisings.
And it's not mere correlation. I already explained how high fuel prices increase fertilizer cost. Then there's transportation. Also fuel cost for operating tractors, combines, etc. Not to mention encouraging to dedicate arable land to biofuel instead of food production.
You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices. Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.
Are there connections between food and oil prices? Sure. But they're also driven by the same global demand. Most raw resources will show a roughly similar trend in price over the past 5 years - from lumber, to minerals, to soybeans, to gold...
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:58:04 PM
You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices. Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.
:huh: I'm pretty sure he's not.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:58:04 PM
You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices. Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.
:huh: I'm pretty sure he's not.
Yeah, people were saying that back when it was just Egypt.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 04:58:04 PM
You are the first one to suggest the Libyan revolt was due to food prices. Most have said it was due to the Arab spring, general dissatisfaction at Gadaffhi's rule, etc.
Yes, there was dissatisfaction in all those states. And that's nothing new. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya ... all of those have been ruthless dictatorships for decades. People can and will live with that. But it becomes harder without enough food on the table.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:53:09 PM
It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries. Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer. You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.
The bolded part was true for the vast majority of humanity throughout human history. It's less true now that it ever has been, not because the earth's resources have increased, or because demand has decreased due to a drop in human population (far from it!), but because the technology and social organization to use the resources has increased. Whether or not those factors have steadily increased throughout history, or just since the industrial revolution isn't really important. What is important is how much they will increase in the future, relative to human population. I see no reason to believe that technological decline or even stagnation is likely to set in any time in the near future. I'm less confident that social stagnation or decline won't set in, but if it does, it'll be because we've listen to the Ideologues of the world, not the Barristers.
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2011, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 02:53:09 PM
It is possible that demand for life necessities will rise so much that we will need to expend most of our resources on the basics, rather than luxuries. Just because supply and demand help adjust for some good's shortage doesn't mean that the new equillibrium wouldn't make us objectively poorer. You seem to confuse the ability of free market to adjust to changing conditions with the ability of free market to deal with any cataclysm for free.
The bolded part was true for the vast majority of humanity throughout human history. It's less true now that it ever has been, not because the earth's resources have increased, or because demand has decreased due to a drop in human population (far from it!), but because the technology and social organization to use the resources has increased. Whether or not those factors have steadily increased throughout history, or just since the industrial revolution isn't really important. What is important is how much they will increase in the future, relative to human population. I see no reason to believe that technological decline or even stagnation is likely to set in any time in the near future. I'm less confident that social stagnation or decline won't set in, but if it does, it'll be because we've listen to the Ideologues of the world, not the Barristers.
While I'm always happy to hear my name dropped, WTF did I do? :lol:
You're a commie.
When I first read Slag's zero-sum nugget I thought it was Ide. Confusion cause by the similar avatars as well as overlap in political economy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2011, 07:13:53 PM
When I first read Slag's zero-sum nugget I thought it was Ide. Confusion cause by the similar avatars as well as overlap in political economy.
Not that much of an overlap.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:46:38 PM
Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years. The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.
You're wrong. But I can not spend the time to find the proof that you're wrong this afternoon - it's a sunny Friday afternoon.
Barrister,
I recently read "Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future" by Ian Morris. One of the premises is that both the East and West (writ large, with centers of gravity shifting over time) several times reached a certain amount of development and then crashed; only in around the 1800s were the previous limits broken.
I have food insecurity.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:11:36 PM
I have food insecurity.
Eww, take your poor ass out of here.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:11:36 PM
I have food insecurity.
Siege has a point. Siege gets enough food, but not nearly enough variety. He hasn't eaten pork, shrimp, or lobster in a long while.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:11:36 PM
I have food insecurity.
Eight spices? Some of these must be doubles. O-re-gan-o? What the hell?
Quote from: ulmont on August 12, 2011, 09:45:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 03:46:38 PM
Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years. The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.
You're wrong. But I can not spend the time to find the proof that you're wrong this afternoon - it's a sunny Friday afternoon.
Barrister,
I recently read "Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future" by Ian Morris. One of the premises is that both the East and West (writ large, with centers of gravity shifting over time) several times reached a certain amount of development and then crashed; only in around the 1800s were the previous limits broken.
Hey that is a great book. I think Jacob would enjoy it.
:pinch: Ooh. The Kiss of Death.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:55:48 PMHey that is a great book. I think Jacob would enjoy it.
I'll wait until Ed Anger recommends it.
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2011, 05:40:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:55:48 PMHey that is a great book. I think Jacob would enjoy it.
I'll wait until Ed Anger recommends it.
It sounds dreadfully boring.
He can give me his money if he doesn't want it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2011, 06:59:04 AM
He can give me his money if he doesn't want it.
I have shit I can give you. I'm not using the word "Shit" as a place holder. I'm talking about real human feces. Mine. You can have it. I will mail it to you.
Tim has feces insecurity.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 01:32:58 PMEconomic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history. There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.
Really? My understanding was that constant economic growth relatively recent, from the 18th century or so. Aside from that you've got declines and increases for centuries but always to a mean.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2011, 11:43:17 AM
Really? I find that hard to believe.
I have views on people, and on cultures. I worry not a whit about "race".
That's pretty foolish of you, given that you live in a place where Indians are so prone to criminality. Those sorts of views are unsafe.
Why does he have to quit sports? He can just play for amatuer leagues as a Socialist Hero of the Peoples and stuff.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:14:04 PM
The population did rise for a while in the Middle Ages, due to environmental factors. When those factors reversed, the population declined rather dramatically.
Population rose in medieval Europe in significant part to improvements in agricultural techniques and technology. It declined temporarily due to catastrophic disease, then quickly revived to even greater levels. All long before the industrial revolution.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 30, 2011, 06:36:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:14:04 PM
The population did rise for a while in the Middle Ages, due to environmental factors. When those factors reversed, the population declined rather dramatically.
Population rose in medieval Europe in significant part to improvements in agricultural techniques and technology. It declined temporarily due to catastrophic disease, then quickly revived to even greater levels. All long before the industrial revolution.
Er, it did not quickly revive to even greater levels. A hundred years after the plagues the population was below what it had been prior to the plagues.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2011, 06:49:36 PM
Er, it did not quickly revive to even greater levels. A hundred years after the plagues the population was below what it had been prior to the plagues.
The plagues recurred numerous times during the late 14th and into the 15th centuries- so a hundred years after would take you to the late 16th century and by then, population was well above prior peaks.
For Western Europe:
1300 - 58 million
1400 - 41 million
1500 - 57 million
1600 - 74 million