Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And I really think that all this everything-is-perfect and authority-is-benign stuff was to some extent a deliberate lie. Those putting it out knew better.

Have you considered the possibility that they were lying to themselves as much or more than you? Or to put my point more precisely, that the people they were trying to convince included themselves?

H.C.:

There's sure to still be plenty of fossil fuels left, too

No. That's just not true. Oil production will peak globally in about 5 or 6 years, begin to decline after that, and never again increase. The natural gas peak will hit a few years after the oil peak. Only the coal peak is still far off, and coal is of limited utility.

We could sustain a population nationally and globally considerably larger than we do now without necessarily involving greater damage to the environment.

How, exactly? We can't even sustain the present population without unacceptable (and unsustainable) environmental damage.

In fact, I suspect the 21st century may be marked by deliberate efforts to increase population growth, which probably won't work. Similar things happened in Classical civilization in the 1st century AD.

That may happen here and there, where population is dropping faster than in other places. I agree that it won't work. Worldwide, it won't happen.

Have you considered the possibility that they were lying to themselves as much or more than you? Or to put my point more precisely, that the people they were trying to convince included themselves?

Yes, that's possible.

Say, project things into the future, and give us a hypothetical Nomad's perspective, would you, H.C.? I'm asking this because the most significant architects of the American High were the Lost, not the GIs. They were the ones most responsible for the fiction we lived in, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they, more than anyone else, knew better.

Can you imagine why a Nomad generation might want to do that in their elder years?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That may happen here and there, where population is dropping faster than in other places. I agree that it won't work. Worldwide, it won't happen.

In the medium to long term, Birth rates worldwide will reach levels to that of the developed world (1.5 to 2 children per woman), the world's population will start to decline slowly in the next few decades.

With a declining population, the fundamental structure of our economy will have to be changed, growth based economies, need population growth to remain healthy.

I reckon Birth rates in the USA stay the same as now and Europe's to increase quite a bit in the next High. That would be due to increased marriage rates among Europeans, among both married Europeans and Americans the number of children per woman is pretty similar at about 2. In Europe less people get married and marry on average older than they do in the USA.

Well, it's time to jump back in after several weeks hiatus.

Yes and no. The culture of America has changed because of this saeculum's Awakening and there's no reversing that, but a return to some aspects of the '50s is likely.

Exactly. For better or worse, our country will never again be like it was before the 1960s.

Add: a much more energy- and resource-efficient economy, burning little or no oil or other fossil fuels; a lot more institutionalized green practices in general; international trade organizations that serve the goals of fair labor practices and environmental protection, not just corporate profits, and hence prompt no protests; stronger international cooperative organizations in general; a smaller U.S. military with greater connections to allied military forces; an international peacekeeping organization with real teeth, most likely not part of the U.N. (which may even be gone); and a self-identification as an integral and crucial part of the globe; and

Or: An energy- and resource-starved economy breaking down under the weight of fiscal and monetary mismanagement, with widespread and chronic underemployment (not unemployment, since masses of idle poor are breeding grounds for revolution, while subsistence workers are more tractable); the balkanization and militarization of large states as cash-strapped provinces throw off bankrupt federal governments for self-rule, only to see municipalities do the same at the local level, until the political map of the world resembles that of the 11th century more than the 21st; the dissolution of international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund as societies become increasingly insular and xenophobic. The next High will indeed see greater social cohesion, but at the community level as people struggle alongside their neighbors to survive in anticipation of the collapse of civilization.

Subtract: the 1950s' racism, sexism, and jingoism.

Add the ignorance, superstition, and provincialism of the medieval peasant. Everyone reading this thread should pick up a few good references on feudalism before they're burned by illiterate rioters, since we'll all soon be asking our landlords/employers for permission to marry and travel between towns.

I would like to say subtract the red-baiting as well, but if we're true to the saecular form it will be present in a different form -- not Communists but something else, some way of tarring and feathering progressives that will allow conservatives to take power and bring the reform era to a halt for a while.

Any stranger will be suspect, and I expect quite a few "witch-hunts" as the poor and downtrodden make scapegoats of scientists, academics, and bureaucrats, whose "meddling" made them obsolete in the workforce and dependent on government assistance for their well-being.

If things go even reasonably well, we should have a much stronger economy with the problems of this one more or less fixed, and a new sense of identification between the individual and the nation (or even the international structure of which the nation is a part). We should have government, business, and other institutions that work well. And the values regime evolved by my generation should begin to seem stale and slightly irrelevant, especially as we near the High's end.

The problems of the economy cannot be fixed because they are fundamental to its operation. All economic activity for the last several centuries has depended on a mathematical impossibility: that debt and profits can increase geometrically without consequence, forever. Neither is true. Debt accumulation eventually triggers a deflationary adjustment, which can only be rectified by destroying overcapacity and starting anew (see Depression, Great; World War, Second); while profits can only increase by A) bringing more land under development (blocked by environmental legislation and the criminal neglect of the space program), and/or B) making labor more productive (which we working stiffs experience as longer hours for less pay, vanishing benefits, and nonexistent job security). No amount of "progressive" legislation is going to solve our problems, unless it completely dismantles the banking and credit industries (not going to happen this side of Armageddon) and shifts billions of dollars from social spending to space exploration (also not going to happen).

Well, it's time to jump back in after several weeks hiatus.

Yes and no. The culture of America has changed because of this saeculum's Awakening and there's no reversing that, but a return to some aspects of the '50s is likely.

Exactly. For better or worse, our country will never again be like it was before the 1960s.

Add: a much more energy- and resource-efficient economy, burning little or no oil or other fossil fuels; a lot more institutionalized green practices in general; international trade organizations that serve the goals of fair labor practices and environmental protection, not just corporate profits, and hence prompt no protests; stronger international cooperative organizations in general; a smaller U.S. military with greater connections to allied military forces; an international peacekeeping organization with real teeth, most likely not part of the U.N. (which may even be gone); and a self-identification as an integral and crucial part of the globe; and

Or: An energy- and resource-starved economy breaking down under the weight of fiscal and monetary mismanagement, with widespread and chronic underemployment (not unemployment, since masses of idle poor are breeding grounds for revolution, while subsistence workers are more tractable); the balkanization and militarization of large states as cash-strapped provinces throw off bankrupt federal governments for self-rule, only to see municipalities do the same at the local level, until the political map of the world resembles that of the 11th century more than the 21st; the dissolution of international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund as societies become increasingly insular and xenophobic. The next High will indeed see greater social cohesion, but at the community level as people struggle alongside their neighbors to survive in anticipation of the collapse of civilization.

Subtract: the 1950s' racism, sexism, and jingoism.

Add the ignorance, superstition, and provincialism of the medieval peasant. Everyone reading this thread should pick up a few good references on feudalism before they're burned by illiterate rioters, since we'll all soon be asking our landlords/employers for permission to marry and travel between towns.

I would like to say subtract the red-baiting as well, but if we're true to the saecular form it will be present in a different form -- not Communists but something else, some way of tarring and feathering progressives that will allow conservatives to take power and bring the reform era to a halt for a while.

Any stranger will be suspect, and I expect quite a few "witch-hunts" as the poor and downtrodden make scapegoats of scientists, academics, and bureaucrats, whose "meddling" made them obsolete in the workforce and dependent on government assistance for their well-being.

If things go even reasonably well, we should have a much stronger economy with the problems of this one more or less fixed, and a new sense of identification between the individual and the nation (or even the international structure of which the nation is a part). We should have government, business, and other institutions that work well. And the values regime evolved by my generation should begin to seem stale and slightly irrelevant, especially as we near the High's end.

The problems of the economy cannot be fixed because they are fundamental to its operation. All economic activity for the last several centuries has depended on a mathematical impossibility: that debt and profits can increase geometrically without consequence, forever. Neither is true. Debt accumulation eventually triggers a deflationary adjustment, which can only be rectified by destroying overcapacity and starting anew (see Depression, Great; World War, Second); while profits can only increase by A) bringing more land under development (blocked by environmental legislation and the criminal neglect of the space program), and/or B) making labor more productive (which we working stiffs experience as longer hours for less pay, vanishing benefits, and nonexistent job security). No amount of "progressive" legislation is going to solve our problems, unless it completely dismantles the banking and credit industries (not going to happen this side of Armageddon) and shifts billions of dollars from social spending to space exploration (also not going to happen).

How do we know, though, that the 2040-60 Awakening will be marked by high levels of crime and violence??? Because the last one was? That's alot like how many of us believe that We must still Be 3T because the Second Great Depression hasn't started yet (or has it???). We can't assume that the next Awakening will be a rerun of the last, any more than we can that this Crisis will duplicate the 1930s and 40s.

Depressions really can't happen anymore because of artificial barriers put in place by the government specifically to prevent them. What you can have is a drawn out market bust followed by grinding recession, which is rather like what we've been experiencing in the U.S. since the tech bubble burst in '01. Of course, the administration and the Fed have bent over backwards to deny a recession ever happened (or is still happening), but the unemployment figures speak louder than any government spindoctor.

How do we know, though, that the 2040-60 Awakening will be marked by high levels of crime and violence??? Because the last one was? That's alot like how many of us believe that We must still Be 3T because the Second Great Depression hasn't started yet (or has it???). We can't assume that the next Awakening will be a rerun of the last, any more than we can that this Crisis will duplicate the 1930s and 40s.

Depressions really can't happen anymore because of artificial barriers put in place by the government specifically to prevent them. What you can have is a drawn out market bust followed by grinding recession, which is rather like what we've been experiencing in the U.S. since the tech bubble burst in '01. Of course, the administration and the Fed have bent over backwards to deny a recession ever happened (or is still happening), but the unemployment figures speak louder than any government spindoctor.

Say, project things into the future, and give us a hypothetical Nomad's perspective, would you, H.C.? I'm asking this because the most significant architects of the American High were the Lost, not the GIs. They were the ones most responsible for the fiction we lived in, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they, more than anyone else, knew better.

Can you imagine why a Nomad generation might want to do that in their elder years?

Absolutely. It's a reaction to childhood memories of adult excess and irresponsibility, and to their own struggles and indiscretions during young adulthood. Nomads get burned out by life very early on, and have the rest of their years to contemplate ways to spare their posterity the same insecurity, frustration, and exhaustion that they endured. That this involves quite a bit of hypocrisy and creative editing on the part of Nomad leaders is no big deal: everyone is selling something, but this time the product is a pleasant and ordered society for the children and grandchildren. Well worth the fiction.

Say, project things into the future, and give us a hypothetical Nomad's perspective, would you, H.C.? I'm asking this because the most significant architects of the American High were the Lost, not the GIs. They were the ones most responsible for the fiction we lived in, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they, more than anyone else, knew better.

Can you imagine why a Nomad generation might want to do that in their elder years?

Absolutely. It's a reaction to childhood memories of adult excess and irresponsibility, and to their own struggles and indiscretions during young adulthood. Nomads get burned out by life very early on, and have the rest of their years to contemplate ways to spare their posterity the same insecurity, frustration, and exhaustion that they endured. That this involves quite a bit of hypocrisy and creative editing on the part of Nomad leaders is no big deal: everyone is selling something, but this time the product is a pleasant and ordered society for the children and grandchildren. Well worth the fiction.

With a declining population, the fundamental structure of our economy will have to be changed, growth based economies, need population growth to remain healthy.

Actually, they require population growth and the constant acquisition of new land. The West has been in economic distress ever since the closure of the American frontier and the abandonment of European colonialism, and has only managed to hide the fact through deficit spending and debt transfers to the Third World.

I reckon Birth rates in the USA stay the same as now and Europe's to increase quite a bit in the next High. That would be due to increased marriage rates among Europeans, among both married Europeans and Americans the number of children per woman is pretty similar at about 2. In Europe less people get married and marry on average older than they do in the USA.

What would be the impetus? Europe is geographically positioned to be seriously damaged by the next Crisis and will not be able to count on American aid to rebuild afterward. There will be no 21st century Marshall Plan to reconstruct the warzones in the aftermath of the next Crisis because the West will have bankrupted itself and devastated most of the rest of the planet during the struggle. The First World War killed 10 million people; the Second, 100 million (counting oft excluded Chinese casualties). If WWIII follows this progression, a billion people will be dead by 2020, and the survivors most likely too demoralized to procreate much. The "prosperity" of the following High will likely be the result of so much salvage laying around in the depopulated zones, waiting to be claimed by the reduced human population. Now that would be ironic.

And I was such a happy child .... :twisted:

With a declining population, the fundamental structure of our economy will have to be changed, growth based economies, need population growth to remain healthy.

Actually, they require population growth and the constant acquisition of new land. The West has been in economic distress ever since the closure of the American frontier and the abandonment of European colonialism, and has only managed to hide the fact through deficit spending and debt transfers to the Third World.

I reckon Birth rates in the USA stay the same as now and Europe's to increase quite a bit in the next High. That would be due to increased marriage rates among Europeans, among both married Europeans and Americans the number of children per woman is pretty similar at about 2. In Europe less people get married and marry on average older than they do in the USA.

What would be the impetus? Europe is geographically positioned to be seriously damaged by the next Crisis and will not be able to count on American aid to rebuild afterward. There will be no 21st century Marshall Plan to reconstruct the warzones in the aftermath of the next Crisis because the West will have bankrupted itself and devastated most of the rest of the planet during the struggle. The First World War killed 10 million people; the Second, 100 million (counting oft excluded Chinese casualties). If WWIII follows this progression, a billion people will be dead by 2020, and the survivors most likely too demoralized to procreate much. The "prosperity" of the following High will likely be the result of so much salvage laying around in the depopulated zones, waiting to be claimed by the reduced human population. Now that would be ironic.

And I was such a happy child .... :twisted:

Arkham:

The problems of the economy cannot be fixed because they are fundamental to its operation. All economic activity for the last several centuries has depended on a mathematical impossibility: that debt and profits can increase geometrically without consequence, forever. Neither is true.

Debt has not been increasing geometrically for the past several centuries, only the past several decades, so you're only half right. Let's agree about debt; obviously that has to balance at some point. How about profits? How about economic growth? Can that continue indefinitely?

First of all, the only reason an economy needs to expand "geometrically" is if it has a geometrically-expanding population to supply. It's per capita economic growth that really matters. With a stable population, we could end up with much slower economic growth that still provides rising standards of living. With a stable population, any growth in the economy, however feeble, provides rising standards of living.

Secondly, what really matters for economic growth is not (as you said) the acquisition of new land, but the increase in usable resources. Now that can certainly come from the acquisition of new land, and in recent history did. But it can also come from the development of a new type of resource previously unused, or from technological developments that increase the efficiency of resource use or use resources in new ways. There is no theoretical limit to either of these, and also we should remember that if we manage to get over the present hump, and develop a sustainable society, it will be possible over time to expand into space. Energy and mineral resources abound in the solar system, and in the long-term it should be possible to terraform Mars, and maybe even Venus, for a terrestrial biosphere.

When I spoke of "fixing" the economy of course I didn't mean a "quick fix," and I realize that it is flawed in what some people would consider its "fundamentals." I anticipate radical restructuring, not just tinkering. And yes, it will be quite painful, and we could fail, and your doomsday scenario is entirely possible. But it isn't certain, and there's no cause to throw in the towel just yet.

Arkham:

The problems of the economy cannot be fixed because they are fundamental to its operation. All economic activity for the last several centuries has depended on a mathematical impossibility: that debt and profits can increase geometrically without consequence, forever. Neither is true.

Debt has not been increasing geometrically for the past several centuries, only the past several decades, so you're only half right. Let's agree about debt; obviously that has to balance at some point. How about profits? How about economic growth? Can that continue indefinitely?

First of all, the only reason an economy needs to expand "geometrically" is if it has a geometrically-expanding population to supply. It's per capita economic growth that really matters. With a stable population, we could end up with much slower economic growth that still provides rising standards of living. With a stable population, any growth in the economy, however feeble, provides rising standards of living.

Secondly, what really matters for economic growth is not (as you said) the acquisition of new land, but the increase in usable resources. Now that can certainly come from the acquisition of new land, and in recent history did. But it can also come from the development of a new type of resource previously unused, or from technological developments that increase the efficiency of resource use or use resources in new ways. There is no theoretical limit to either of these, and also we should remember that if we manage to get over the present hump, and develop a sustainable society, it will be possible over time to expand into space. Energy and mineral resources abound in the solar system, and in the long-term it should be possible to terraform Mars, and maybe even Venus, for a terrestrial biosphere.

When I spoke of "fixing" the economy of course I didn't mean a "quick fix," and I realize that it is flawed in what some people would consider its "fundamentals." I anticipate radical restructuring, not just tinkering. And yes, it will be quite painful, and we could fail, and your doomsday scenario is entirely possible. But it isn't certain, and there's no cause to throw in the towel just yet.

In the Millennial High, young, sexually frustrated high school students will be able to use computers to build the perfect woman.

In the Millennial High, young, sexually frustrated high school students will be able to use computers to build the perfect woman.

I'm actually quite concerned about underemployment. I am terribly underemployed and am yet just exhausted enough that all I really feel like doing is going home and watching reality TV. I make just enough money for rent and to fill up my car with freakishly expensive gas. Certainly no time to foment a peasants revolt. Who knew we'd see a time when someone with two degrees would be making labels in a law office?

I'm actually quite concerned about underemployment. I am terribly underemployed and am yet just exhausted enough that all I really feel like doing is going home and watching reality TV. I make just enough money for rent and to fill up my car with freakishly expensive gas. Certainly no time to foment a peasants revolt. Who knew we'd see a time when someone with two degrees would be making labels in a law office?

[quote="Brian Rush"]Arkham:

Debt has not been increasing geometrically for the past several centuries, only the past several decades, so you're only half right. Let's agree about debt; obviously that has to balance at some point. How about profits? How about economic growth? Can that continue indefinitely?

A geometric curve is a funny thing in that it's asymptotic: starting from an infinitesimal number, it can spike to infinity in a very brief time. Debt has been growing at all levels since the advent of modern banking in the 16th century, and while it started very small (almost imperceptibly so), it has in the last century ballooned unimaginably and continues to expand. This increase cannot continue indefinitely, however, anymore than the population or economy can continue to expand at 1% a year. If you do the math, you'll discover that eventually everyone will possess the entire contents of the universe and owe an infinite amount of interest on it to banks, which is of course absurd.

First of all, the only reason an economy needs to expand "geometrically" is if it has a geometrically-expanding population to supply. It's per capita economic growth that really matters. With a stable population, we could end up with much slower economic growth that still provides rising standards of living. With a stable population, any growth in the economy, however feeble, provides rising standards of living.

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers. Inflation results, and standards of living decline even as wages shoot through the roof. The Romans experienced this from the 1st century onward: the population of the Empire was in decline and the economy steadily imploding (while the currency became increasingly worthless), despite the fact that Rome controlled the wealth of the entire Mediterranean world.

Secondly, what really matters for economic growth is not (as you said) the acquisition of new land, but the increase in usable resources.

In economics, land is resources. The terms are more or less synonymous.

Now that can certainly come from the acquisition of new land, and in recent history did. But it can also come from the development of a new type of resource previously unused, or from technological developments that increase the efficiency of resource use or use resources in new ways.

Resource substitution still requires land from which to draw the substitute. Economists do not think of land as "that which is not water or air (or vacuum)." It is to them only a source of raw materials.

There is no theoretical limit to either of these, and also we should remember that if we manage to get over the present hump, and develop a sustainable society, it will be possible over time to expand into space. Energy and mineral resources abound in the solar system, and in the long-term it should be possible to terraform Mars, and maybe even Venus, for a terrestrial biosphere.

Yes, there is. The resources of Earth are finite, and we have allowed our space programs to atrophy, so off-world resources aren't an option either. Space will continue to thwart our civilization because it has become too shortsighted and introspective to contemplate rigorous expansion any longer. Our age of exploration ended in the 19th century; it will be up to some future civilization to make the push into space.

When I spoke of "fixing" the economy of course I didn't mean a "quick fix," and I realize that it is flawed in what some people would consider its "fundamentals." I anticipate radical restructuring, not just tinkering. And yes, it will be quite painful, and we could fail, and your doomsday scenario is entirely possible. But it isn't certain, and there's no cause to throw in the towel just yet.

Rome didn't end in a day, either.

[quote="Brian Rush"]Arkham:

Debt has not been increasing geometrically for the past several centuries, only the past several decades, so you're only half right. Let's agree about debt; obviously that has to balance at some point. How about profits? How about economic growth? Can that continue indefinitely?

A geometric curve is a funny thing in that it's asymptotic: starting from an infinitesimal number, it can spike to infinity in a very brief time. Debt has been growing at all levels since the advent of modern banking in the 16th century, and while it started very small (almost imperceptibly so), it has in the last century ballooned unimaginably and continues to expand. This increase cannot continue indefinitely, however, anymore than the population or economy can continue to expand at 1% a year. If you do the math, you'll discover that eventually everyone will possess the entire contents of the universe and owe an infinite amount of interest on it to banks, which is of course absurd.

First of all, the only reason an economy needs to expand "geometrically" is if it has a geometrically-expanding population to supply. It's per capita economic growth that really matters. With a stable population, we could end up with much slower economic growth that still provides rising standards of living. With a stable population, any growth in the economy, however feeble, provides rising standards of living.

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers. Inflation results, and standards of living decline even as wages shoot through the roof. The Romans experienced this from the 1st century onward: the population of the Empire was in decline and the economy steadily imploding (while the currency became increasingly worthless), despite the fact that Rome controlled the wealth of the entire Mediterranean world.

Secondly, what really matters for economic growth is not (as you said) the acquisition of new land, but the increase in usable resources.

In economics, land is resources. The terms are more or less synonymous.

Now that can certainly come from the acquisition of new land, and in recent history did. But it can also come from the development of a new type of resource previously unused, or from technological developments that increase the efficiency of resource use or use resources in new ways.

Resource substitution still requires land from which to draw the substitute. Economists do not think of land as "that which is not water or air (or vacuum)." It is to them only a source of raw materials.

There is no theoretical limit to either of these, and also we should remember that if we manage to get over the present hump, and develop a sustainable society, it will be possible over time to expand into space. Energy and mineral resources abound in the solar system, and in the long-term it should be possible to terraform Mars, and maybe even Venus, for a terrestrial biosphere.

Yes, there is. The resources of Earth are finite, and we have allowed our space programs to atrophy, so off-world resources aren't an option either. Space will continue to thwart our civilization because it has become too shortsighted and introspective to contemplate rigorous expansion any longer. Our age of exploration ended in the 19th century; it will be up to some future civilization to make the push into space.

When I spoke of "fixing" the economy of course I didn't mean a "quick fix," and I realize that it is flawed in what some people would consider its "fundamentals." I anticipate radical restructuring, not just tinkering. And yes, it will be quite painful, and we could fail, and your doomsday scenario is entirely possible. But it isn't certain, and there's no cause to throw in the towel just yet.

Rome didn't end in a day, either.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I'm actually quite concerned about underemployment. I am terribly underemployed and am yet just exhausted enough that all I really feel like doing is going home and watching reality TV. I make just enough money for rent and to fill up my car with freakishly expensive gas. Certainly no time to foment a peasants revolt. Who knew we'd see a time when someone with two degrees would be making labels in a law office?

That is exactly what I meant when I said that subsistence workers are more tractable. The underemployed work hard just to survive and are normally too tired to contemplate revolution. Serfdom depended on the same principle.

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

I'm actually quite concerned about underemployment. I am terribly underemployed and am yet just exhausted enough that all I really feel like doing is going home and watching reality TV. I make just enough money for rent and to fill up my car with freakishly expensive gas. Certainly no time to foment a peasants revolt. Who knew we'd see a time when someone with two degrees would be making labels in a law office?

That is exactly what I meant when I said that subsistence workers are more tractable. The underemployed work hard just to survive and are normally too tired to contemplate revolution. Serfdom depended on the same principle.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

A geometric curve is a funny thing in that it's asymptotic: starting from an infinitesimal number, it can spike to infinity in a very brief time. Debt has been growing at all levels since the advent of modern banking in the 16th century

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I was normalizing for population size in my mind. It seems to me that that is what matters when one is referring to debt, after all.

Per capita debt has only been growing for a few decades now. Analogize this to personal finances. A debt that grows in proportion to income is not a problem; a debt that grows faster than income potentially is. We have engaged in potentially dangerous debt, debt that grows faster than wealth, consumer, corporate, and government, through the course of this saeculum. It cannot continue. But it hasn't been going on since the beginning of banking.

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers. Inflation results

No. Inflation does not follow upon wage increases, or at least not to the extent that the wage increases can't keep up with them. For the first half of this saeculum in the U.S., real income (adjusted for inflation) grew steadily. The real ruinous inflation occurred in the 1970s, and it was driven by public debt from the Vietnam War, inflationary monetary policies, and the oil shortages of that decade. It was not even accompanied, let alone caused, by wage increases.

There is a tendency for capitalist economies to unbalance by paying too little in wages. This results in a decline in consumer demand, and weakens the economy. ZPG, to the extent that it will increase wages, is a good thing, not a bad one.

In economics, land is resources. The terms are more or less synonymous.

No, resources is a broader term than land. The development of oil technology represented a huge increase in available resources, probably even larger than the conquest of the New World, but it did not add any new land into the equation, only a new resource from the existing land.

Resource substitution still requires land from which to draw the substitute.

Your original argument was that it required new land, and we are screwed because all the land is discovered and occupied. Resource substitution does not require new land. It requires only new resources.

The resources of Earth are finite, and we have allowed our space programs to atrophy, so off-world resources aren't an option either.

They aren't an immediate option. They aren't going to get us over this Crisis. They are a long-term option.

The space program hasn't "atrophied." It's merely been idle. It is not a muscle that weakens with disuse. It's just something that we either do or don't do. If we can develop a sustainable society, we have all the time in the world to expand into space, and we will get there.

Rome didn't end in a day, either.

Arkham, Murphy's Law has a corrolary: Anything that can go right will, too (as with things that go wrong, given enough time and chances).

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

A geometric curve is a funny thing in that it's asymptotic: starting from an infinitesimal number, it can spike to infinity in a very brief time. Debt has been growing at all levels since the advent of modern banking in the 16th century

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I was normalizing for population size in my mind. It seems to me that that is what matters when one is referring to debt, after all.

Per capita debt has only been growing for a few decades now. Analogize this to personal finances. A debt that grows in proportion to income is not a problem; a debt that grows faster than income potentially is. We have engaged in potentially dangerous debt, debt that grows faster than wealth, consumer, corporate, and government, through the course of this saeculum. It cannot continue. But it hasn't been going on since the beginning of banking.

Unfortunately, zero population growth won't do humanity any good. When population stasizes or declines, wages increase because there is less labor to employ and firms must compete fiercely for workers. Inflation results

No. Inflation does not follow upon wage increases, or at least not to the extent that the wage increases can't keep up with them. For the first half of this saeculum in the U.S., real income (adjusted for inflation) grew steadily. The real ruinous inflation occurred in the 1970s, and it was driven by public debt from the Vietnam War, inflationary monetary policies, and the oil shortages of that decade. It was not even accompanied, let alone caused, by wage increases.

There is a tendency for capitalist economies to unbalance by paying too little in wages. This results in a decline in consumer demand, and weakens the economy. ZPG, to the extent that it will increase wages, is a good thing, not a bad one.

In economics, land is resources. The terms are more or less synonymous.

No, resources is a broader term than land. The development of oil technology represented a huge increase in available resources, probably even larger than the conquest of the New World, but it did not add any new land into the equation, only a new resource from the existing land.

Resource substitution still requires land from which to draw the substitute.

Your original argument was that it required new land, and we are screwed because all the land is discovered and occupied. Resource substitution does not require new land. It requires only new resources.

The resources of Earth are finite, and we have allowed our space programs to atrophy, so off-world resources aren't an option either.

They aren't an immediate option. They aren't going to get us over this Crisis. They are a long-term option.

The space program hasn't "atrophied." It's merely been idle. It is not a muscle that weakens with disuse. It's just something that we either do or don't do. If we can develop a sustainable society, we have all the time in the world to expand into space, and we will get there.

Rome didn't end in a day, either.

Arkham, Murphy's Law has a corrolary: Anything that can go right will, too (as with things that go wrong, given enough time and chances).

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

I was going to write a long reply to your various arguments, but this one statement gets to the heart of why I post at all on this subject. I know I come across as cynical, despairing, and alarmist. As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal. Westerners continue to demonstrate an almost psychotic refusal to acknowledge this fact, however, and so I feel compelled to remind them of it, repeatedly and forcefully if necessary, in order to maintain a balanced perspective. Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.

We are in danger, but we aren't dead yet, and as long as we're alive, it's OK to hope. It won't make the end of civilization any worse if it comes as a disappointment, and a lack of hope makes that end more likely. We need to recognize the danger, which too many people haven't for too long, but if we confuse danger with doom, we are just as paralyzed and it does us no good.

I was going to write a long reply to your various arguments, but this one statement gets to the heart of why I post at all on this subject. I know I come across as cynical, despairing, and alarmist. As I've said before, though, my expectations for the human race as a whole are positive. But the West has run its course and is going to die soon. This is natural. No civilization is immortal, just as no human being is immortal. Westerners continue to demonstrate an almost psychotic refusal to acknowledge this fact, however, and so I feel compelled to remind them of it, repeatedly and forcefully if necessary, in order to maintain a balanced perspective. Hope is a funny thing in that it can drive people to struggle against daunting odds and win, but it can also impell them to ignore the obvious and bring considerable suffering upon themselves for no reason. The longer we try to preserve our moribund civilization, the more people will suffer under its dysfunctional institutions and decrepit worldview. Sometimes the best thing is to let go and allow change to happen, and this is one of those historical moments when the only viable course left is cataclysm. The alternative is prolonged stasis, followed by rapid decline and extinction.