This is the most depressing chart in the world(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
This is the most depressing chart in the world
http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-global-economic-revisions-2016-2
91 comments
In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else. Life becomes a zero-sum game. This is a qualitative change. The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most.
Life is already a negative-sum game for the majority of people. The common citizen has to work more and more hours and still gets diminishing returns, while a very small percentage of the population accumulates an increasing chunk of the resources.
Zero-sum game would feel like a huge improvement for most.
Zero-sum game would feel like a huge improvement for most.
> while a very small percentage of the population accumulates an increasing chunk of the resources...without any work.
FTFY
FTFY
Certain people seem to have more than enough to share around. Instead they seem to concentrate on accumulating more of it by (often by taking it from other people).
Sounds like you're proposing the zero sum outcome.
No. I see two ways of getting rich in this world.
1:Creating something that lots of people want and increasing the wealth for everyone.
2: Cornering the market and hoarding something that people have a need for.
The first benefits everyone. The second makes someone rich at the expense of other.
1:Creating something that lots of people want and increasing the wealth for everyone.
2: Cornering the market and hoarding something that people have a need for.
The first benefits everyone. The second makes someone rich at the expense of other.
We're already at zero sum when GDP is growing at near zero, a.k.a not growing.
>In the absence of growth the only way for an individual to get more resources is to take it from someone else.
Part of my point is that there are more than enough resources, what's needed is better distribution. Plus some scaling down the over-consumption of crap.
Besides this "taking it from someone else" is already the case with the growth model, were not only a tiny fraction of the population has a huge percentage of the world's wealth (debt aside, I know those arguments too), but people can be making $1000 Armani suits for 12 hours a day in the third world just to have the same, or even worse, quality of life as they did before their country was forced into globalization.
For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world, as colonialists, neo-colonialists, slave owners, democrary-bringers etc, plus heavy internal forcing of people (e.g. the rural population) to become factory workers.
Now we've come to the point technologically that we don't need all those people anyway -- not even the service industry which we invented as a stop gap to have people employed.
Part of my point is that there are more than enough resources, what's needed is better distribution. Plus some scaling down the over-consumption of crap.
Besides this "taking it from someone else" is already the case with the growth model, were not only a tiny fraction of the population has a huge percentage of the world's wealth (debt aside, I know those arguments too), but people can be making $1000 Armani suits for 12 hours a day in the third world just to have the same, or even worse, quality of life as they did before their country was forced into globalization.
For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world, as colonialists, neo-colonialists, slave owners, democrary-bringers etc, plus heavy internal forcing of people (e.g. the rural population) to become factory workers.
Now we've come to the point technologically that we don't need all those people anyway -- not even the service industry which we invented as a stop gap to have people employed.
I don't understand what you're saying. By any reasonable measure, the quality of life of the median human inhabitant of Planet Earth is better than it was 20 years ago, when it was better than it was 20 years before. You probably hit some dips for the World Wars, but if we can avoid any more of those, I don't see why we would want to stop the positive trendline that has accompanied and depends on economic growth.
>I don't understand what you're saying
That's because you use "quality of life" as if it meant purchase power or access to gadgets.
And even that's wrong -- people in the 50s could support a family of four/five and get their kids to college with a single office job. Present day middle class, not so much.
In fact it has been shown time and again that wages have been stagnating (when corrected for inflation) since the seventies or so.
That's because you use "quality of life" as if it meant purchase power or access to gadgets.
And even that's wrong -- people in the 50s could support a family of four/five and get their kids to college with a single office job. Present day middle class, not so much.
In fact it has been shown time and again that wages have been stagnating (when corrected for inflation) since the seventies or so.
First, there's almost no relevant metric sorting Earthers that would have an American as the median.
Second, it is absolutely nuts to suggest the average American citizen was better off in the 1950's. 1950's America still had a substantial amount of truly crippling poverty, it had millions of citizens who had almost no chance at that great office job due to their race or gender, and life expectancy at birth was lower by almost a decade.
And yes, that's before you figure the months of salary to buy, say, a refrigerator, that the median wage earner can now afford on a week's pay. A refrigerator, by the way, that will be larger, last longer, and use substantially less energy than the one from 1955.
Or the huge growth in sales of air travel, entertainment, dining... luxuries in the 1950's that are commonplace today.
Yes, access to cheap credit makes it easy to bid up the prices of scarce resources like slots at good colleges or houses in desirable areas, but the average American isn't paying out of pocket much more for those things as a % of their income than they were 70 years ago. And of course the colleges are much nicer places to live and study than they were, and the houses are bigger and better constructed.
Second, it is absolutely nuts to suggest the average American citizen was better off in the 1950's. 1950's America still had a substantial amount of truly crippling poverty, it had millions of citizens who had almost no chance at that great office job due to their race or gender, and life expectancy at birth was lower by almost a decade.
And yes, that's before you figure the months of salary to buy, say, a refrigerator, that the median wage earner can now afford on a week's pay. A refrigerator, by the way, that will be larger, last longer, and use substantially less energy than the one from 1955.
Or the huge growth in sales of air travel, entertainment, dining... luxuries in the 1950's that are commonplace today.
Yes, access to cheap credit makes it easy to bid up the prices of scarce resources like slots at good colleges or houses in desirable areas, but the average American isn't paying out of pocket much more for those things as a % of their income than they were 70 years ago. And of course the colleges are much nicer places to live and study than they were, and the houses are bigger and better constructed.
In Egypt 75% of the population is under the age of 25. These people want opportunities, jobs, apartments, cars, consumer goods, and escape from the daily struggle of poverty. Per capita GDP in Egypt is about $1575. For comparison in the US it's about $54 000. Blame inequality all you want but even with perfect equality the pie in Egypt is not big enough to provide all of its people with the western standard of life that the people want.
> For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world,
Really? You think colonialism is the main driver of economics growth?
> For centuries the growth depended on plundering the third world,
Really? You think colonialism is the main driver of economics growth?
>Really? You think colonialism is the main driver of economics growth?
Yeah, really. It was the big enabler for all the growth that later turned into the "industrial revolution", and continued to provide a huge percentage of western GDP well into the 20th century, directly (as exploited and plundered places) and indirectly (as markets for example).
Cheap oil, for one, is always good to ensure for one's country.
At some point it became economically inefficient to enslave countries with close to 2-3 billions of inhabitants, and the cold war had changed the political climate anyway, but not so much that countries won't participate in post-colonial power games.
It's no accident that it's exactly the countries that did the plundering (the colonial powers) that rose up into prominence, and the ones that were plundered that got the short end of the stick.
Yeah, really. It was the big enabler for all the growth that later turned into the "industrial revolution", and continued to provide a huge percentage of western GDP well into the 20th century, directly (as exploited and plundered places) and indirectly (as markets for example).
Cheap oil, for one, is always good to ensure for one's country.
At some point it became economically inefficient to enslave countries with close to 2-3 billions of inhabitants, and the cold war had changed the political climate anyway, but not so much that countries won't participate in post-colonial power games.
It's no accident that it's exactly the countries that did the plundering (the colonial powers) that rose up into prominence, and the ones that were plundered that got the short end of the stick.
> Blame inequality all you want but even with perfect equality the pie in Egypt is not big enough to provide all of its people with the western standard of life that the people want.
Egypt has enough sunlight to provide all the clean energy needed to provide its citizens with first world quality of life. It just needs the funds to build/install the panels to collect that sunlight.
Egypt has enough sunlight to provide all the clean energy needed to provide its citizens with first world quality of life. It just needs the funds to build/install the panels to collect that sunlight.
Growth usually refers to a second derivative, whereas "getting more resources" is a first derivative.
If someone produces the same 5 widgets/month for 10 years, their business has not grown yet they've been creating resources the whole time.
The two are only equivalent when we assume that income matches expenses (no savings), which is a fundamental problem with the modern economy.
If someone produces the same 5 widgets/month for 10 years, their business has not grown yet they've been creating resources the whole time.
The two are only equivalent when we assume that income matches expenses (no savings), which is a fundamental problem with the modern economy.
> The game stops being who can make the most pie to who can take the most
Explains the top 1% and the actual drop in slices of pie. The issue we have is we don't even realize in the States that our pie slice is smaller but the amount is slightly larger. So our pie is a few percentage points down but we have $3,000 more so no one notices.
Explains the top 1% and the actual drop in slices of pie. The issue we have is we don't even realize in the States that our pie slice is smaller but the amount is slightly larger. So our pie is a few percentage points down but we have $3,000 more so no one notices.
are you sure those are the only 2 options? that's like saying you can't improve your apartment w/out influx of new furniture.
It's better when things get cheaper, which is the opposite of growth.
Eat the rich.
For the industrialized world, yes, this sounds reasonable. But bear in mind that the biggest portion of the world still has alarming poverty rates. Those need growth.
A rising tide lifts all boats and it's easy to hand-wave away the fact that it raises some boats much more effectively than others as a necessary compromise. A falling tide will be just as uneven but without a placating excuse. The true power dynamics become undeniable.
I would like to add a reference from the article that supports your point of view.
>that lowered forecast eventually prove too aggressive.
As you mention better distribution is key, I would add this could spark more spending and therefore growth.
>that lowered forecast eventually prove too aggressive.
As you mention better distribution is key, I would add this could spark more spending and therefore growth.
I would expect as more of the world becomes automated and work becomes easier, we would see more economic growth.
That would be great, but zero growth also implies zero return on investment, and lots of current capitalist economic structures don't really work in that environment.
(Yes, growth is ultimately unsustainable, but I think there's a long way to go in bringing up e.g. large areas of Africa to Chinese growth levels)
(Yes, growth is ultimately unsustainable, but I think there's a long way to go in bringing up e.g. large areas of Africa to Chinese growth levels)
Maybe society should start coming up with economic structures that do work in an environment of zero or negative return on investment, instead of just closing our eyes and pretending "forever growth" is a realistic plan.
Some effort is being put into preparing the ground for negative interest rates, but human loss aversion psychology is a difficult thing to overcome.
infinite growth with finite resources is obviously a dumb plan. I think the problem with the graph is not that growth will slow down, but catastrophically crash with total devastation upon our species.
When with a bit of planning and foresight it could all be avoided.
Is a shame
When with a bit of planning and foresight it could all be avoided.
Is a shame
Growth is intrinsic in the human condition and society; if there isn't growth, then there is some underlying problem.
I agree with the sentiment about distribution, quality, etc., but it's a completely separate domain, and I think it's crucial not to mix them.
I agree with the sentiment about distribution, quality, etc., but it's a completely separate domain, and I think it's crucial not to mix them.
I propose you're getting overly philosophical.
We live in a hyper-financialized economy. That means everything relies on (cheap) debt. A lot of debt repayment plans relied on "everything is awesome" as economic prediction, as a justification for the initial investment. What happens to all those financial plans when growth predictions impact reality like a bug hitting a windshield? That might be a little problem.
Top to bottom, from the worlds largest alternative oil source projects down to housing bubble mortgages and high credit card balances. Oh no fears the predictions show high growth into perpetuity that'll take care of everything eventually. Until it doesn't. Whoops.
There is also the ongoing implication of lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice (or five times in this example) shame on me. So you can make deals based on lies about the future one time, two times, three times. But its getting to the point that future predictions are now assumed to be lies, and that has major effects on current deal making. Whats the effect on your commission today for selling a loan balance based on now-2% vs a couple years ago selling a much higher loan balance based on now+3%? Can you even sell loans now? Can a hyperfinancialized economy survive a debt market freeze up? A lot of players won't. Get the printing presses fired up for the inevitable bailouts...
We live in a hyper-financialized economy. That means everything relies on (cheap) debt. A lot of debt repayment plans relied on "everything is awesome" as economic prediction, as a justification for the initial investment. What happens to all those financial plans when growth predictions impact reality like a bug hitting a windshield? That might be a little problem.
Top to bottom, from the worlds largest alternative oil source projects down to housing bubble mortgages and high credit card balances. Oh no fears the predictions show high growth into perpetuity that'll take care of everything eventually. Until it doesn't. Whoops.
There is also the ongoing implication of lie to me once shame on you, lie to me twice (or five times in this example) shame on me. So you can make deals based on lies about the future one time, two times, three times. But its getting to the point that future predictions are now assumed to be lies, and that has major effects on current deal making. Whats the effect on your commission today for selling a loan balance based on now-2% vs a couple years ago selling a much higher loan balance based on now+3%? Can you even sell loans now? Can a hyperfinancialized economy survive a debt market freeze up? A lot of players won't. Get the printing presses fired up for the inevitable bailouts...
What do you want more of? Health, leisure time, vacations, quality food, a better environment, more children living past their 1 (or fifth) birthday?
Growth gets you that.
Growth has made it possible to buy a fridge, an oven, a vaccum cleaner, a dishwasher and a washing machine, all for relatively trivial amounts of money. Together they made it possible for litterally millions of women to persue their dreams (whether that is to have a career, start a business or just spend more time with their children). I have no idea what kind of magic the future could hold, but I find it extremely destressing that anybody could even ask that question.
Oh and if you don't why a washing machine is necessary, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...
Growth gets you that.
Growth has made it possible to buy a fridge, an oven, a vaccum cleaner, a dishwasher and a washing machine, all for relatively trivial amounts of money. Together they made it possible for litterally millions of women to persue their dreams (whether that is to have a career, start a business or just spend more time with their children). I have no idea what kind of magic the future could hold, but I find it extremely destressing that anybody could even ask that question.
Oh and if you don't why a washing machine is necessary, http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...
If you stop the growth, there will be more rat racing. Our current level of growth isn't sustainable because at best it's flat, at worst it's trending downward. This will lead to even more stress, depression, etc., even worse quality of production. Sure, people will have more time, but they will be too desperate to take the time to adapt to new paradigms. And try getting someone to worry about the environment when they are already worrying about making rent.
There's already a word for "growth for the sake of growth": Cancer
THIS is the most depressing chart in the world:
https://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-00180...
https://stormglas.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/20131116-00180...
Not really. 2c isn't a problem unless you have brought too expensive beach-front property in Malibu or something. Humans will adapt, it is what we do second-best.
I guess those affluent villagers living in huts in the Pacific Islands will just have to relocate to Manhattan's Upper East Side?
This of course boldly assumes that human kind is the main source of carbon emissions, and as boldly assumes that Earth can't really have all this carbon in atmosphere.
Yeah, damn that scientific consensus.
This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates. And
mind you, we don't have a working, proven model of climate change. We only
have some speculations based on some proxy variables, and those speculations
tend to ignore most basic physics or statistics (e.g. discussing changes of
temperature that are way below observational errors currently possible, or
focus on marginal CO2 concentration, while H2O concentration is larger of
orders of magnitude, and H2O has, for instance, much higher thermal capacity).
I would far rather we incorrectly rushed to decarbonise and replace with renewables than assume the science is wrong and have an oh fuck we're doomed moment in 30 or 40 years. I won't care, I'll probably be dead by then. My children would.
Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.
Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.
> Decarbonising would remove many other pollutants and particulates from the atmosphere, and should lead to health benefits like reduced asthma in cities.
But it's not all benefit. In rushing to decarbonize, we use alternative energy sources. A lot of battery and solar technology uses heavy metals that break down and seep into the water supply when they are improperly discarded. There are no magic bullet answers, the only solution is a holistic one and so far, only the climate scientists have won the attention of the politicians. Validity arguments aside, it makes you wonder if there's an ulterior motive.
But it's not all benefit. In rushing to decarbonize, we use alternative energy sources. A lot of battery and solar technology uses heavy metals that break down and seep into the water supply when they are improperly discarded. There are no magic bullet answers, the only solution is a holistic one and so far, only the climate scientists have won the attention of the politicians. Validity arguments aside, it makes you wonder if there's an ulterior motive.
So there are thousands of climate scientists which came, over and over again, to the same conclusion: that the extent of current heating is caused by co2 release, which is caused by coal-burning by mankind.
Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right?
Is that what you are saying?
Those have all made several mistakes and continue to make them and the 15 scientists or so who are of a different opinion are probably right?
Is that what you are saying?
Some people have convinced themselves that climate change is not a problem. That's not based on scientific facts, but on superstitious beliefs ("it's a conspiracy", "we didn't do it", "there's nothing we can do about it anyway").
Study after study has showed that superstition cannot be overcome with facts. The more facts you present, the more they get stuck to their incorrect beliefs. It's depressing.
The only solution is to do what Elon Musk is doing: ignore the idiots and pursue what you believe is right.
Study after study has showed that superstition cannot be overcome with facts. The more facts you present, the more they get stuck to their incorrect beliefs. It's depressing.
The only solution is to do what Elon Musk is doing: ignore the idiots and pursue what you believe is right.
There's a problem with this, however: we live in mostly democratic societies (and the non-democratic societies like China are even more carbon-polluting). So you can't just ignore the idiots and still fix the problem; you have to get them to agree there's a problem so they'll vote in people who will do something about it.
And, as you point out, these people can't be convinced with facts.
So, the real solution is to just ignore the idiots and start preparing for a future that resembles Mad Max. Or be like Musk and work really hard on establishing a colony on Mars before you're too old to make the journey there.
And, as you point out, these people can't be convinced with facts.
So, the real solution is to just ignore the idiots and start preparing for a future that resembles Mad Max. Or be like Musk and work really hard on establishing a colony on Mars before you're too old to make the journey there.
We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make
astrology or magic true in any way.
You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two.
Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two.
Granted, astronomy and cosmology operate in similar way to climatology, but we don't establish world-scale policies based on astronomy.
> You know what makes modern physics true? Falsifiability and verifiability. You build a theory, make predictions, develop an experiment, and then conduct the experiment, multiple times. Climatology stops after the first two.
This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions.
This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying.
Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't.
Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3].
[1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737...
[2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough...
[3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
This is, obviously and demonstrably, wrong. The data is out there, the methodologies are out there, and there is tons of related open-source software. You can conduct your own experiments and come to your own conclusions.
This guy [1][2], for example, did, and imagine what: he independently verified what 99% of climate scientists have been saying.
Why don't you give it a go? Put your money where your mouth is and see for yourself what is true and what isn't.
Edit: to the poster below, the data is public, just a quick google search away. For example [3].
[1] http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=533737...
[2] http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thorough...
[3] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
I don't think we're on the same page.
First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.
Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.)
And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions.
And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.
Next, he only charted temperatures. This doesn't prove anything related to carbon concentration by itself, and we don't have proven models to have a causality implied one way or another. (Proven with analogous strictness and confidence as the theory of gravity.)
And finally, I don't claim there is no change to the climate whatsoever. Quite the contrary; humanity has seen the climate to change over its recent history (few hundred years). I just doubt highly that the change is caused by human carbon emissions.
And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.
Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1]
> And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.
[1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." [1]
> And personally, I think it's really arrogant to assume that humanity is powerful enough to change the climate of the whole planet at this point.
So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.
[1] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–6, after Book 3, The System of the World.
>> First, we seem to call different things an experiment. The guy didn't made any experiment, he just charted some data. He didn't change CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, keeping everything else equal, to check if it would affect the resulting temperature.
> Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.
You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening?
> So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.
No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
> Right, and the LIGO didn't create two colliding black holes to measure gravity waves, but measure gravity waves it did.
You think that some guy that merely charted some data is equivalent to some guy that developed a model, predicted what should be seen when some event Q happens, patiently waited for Q to happen, and then observed if his predictions matched what was measured while Q was happening?
> So your disagreement is based on superstitious beliefs, not the scientific method. Exactly as predicted in my previous post.
No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination that actually make sense when one starts estimating how big values are in play (those that don't make sense ignore one of the basic principles, like only accounting the signal that exceeds measurement errors, or laws of thermodynamics).
> No, it's not based on superstitions. It's based on climatology's inability to deliver any explaination [...]
You have already established that you don't believe humans are (or even could be) causing global warming. You are not seeking any scientific proof for that - it is merely a superstitious belief that you are holding. A personal bias, if you will.
The rest of your posts are merely rationalizations for this bias. The problem is not that the science is not explaining climate change enough. The problem is that no possible explanation will penetrate your mind's defenses against the terrifying notion that you might be wrong.
Think of this: if thousands upon thousands of scientists, using hundreds of different methodologies and dozens of different datasets to arrive at the same conclusion, can't convince you; if the fact that, since the industrial revolution, humanity released into the environment energy equivalent to 50% the Triasic-Jurassic extinction event can't convince you; then nothing ever will.
At this point, there's only one thing left: grab one of those datasets and run any sort of analysis you wish. See for yourself what kind of results you come up with. Unless you are willing to walk the walk, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
You have already established that you don't believe humans are (or even could be) causing global warming. You are not seeking any scientific proof for that - it is merely a superstitious belief that you are holding. A personal bias, if you will.
The rest of your posts are merely rationalizations for this bias. The problem is not that the science is not explaining climate change enough. The problem is that no possible explanation will penetrate your mind's defenses against the terrifying notion that you might be wrong.
Think of this: if thousands upon thousands of scientists, using hundreds of different methodologies and dozens of different datasets to arrive at the same conclusion, can't convince you; if the fact that, since the industrial revolution, humanity released into the environment energy equivalent to 50% the Triasic-Jurassic extinction event can't convince you; then nothing ever will.
At this point, there's only one thing left: grab one of those datasets and run any sort of analysis you wish. See for yourself what kind of results you come up with. Unless you are willing to walk the walk, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
>We had thousands of astrology and magic practitioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way.
What made their practices bogus was that it wasn't scientific.
So you're using an argument that undermines your very conclusion.
The analogy to proponents of astrology and magic would be people who doubt the scientific consensus.
What made their practices bogus was that it wasn't scientific.
So you're using an argument that undermines your very conclusion.
The analogy to proponents of astrology and magic would be people who doubt the scientific consensus.
>We had thousands of astrology and magic practicioners. It didn't make astrology or magic true in any way.
No, but a large chunk of the US population believes in this stuff even today.
And they vote.
That's why we're doomed.
No, but a large chunk of the US population believes in this stuff even today.
And they vote.
That's why we're doomed.
Regardless I love breathing in the shit air in my city when I go on a bike ride. It's really nice. No problem here, things are perfect, move along.
>This scientific consensus already made several heavily wrong estimates.
So we should trust something else over that?
So we should trust something else over that?
[deleted]
Well, if the first assumption doesn’t hold, we’ll have to restrict our usage even more. Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
If the first assumption doesn't hold, restricting ourselves will not matter.
> Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
This one assumes the carbon is main or even major substance that keeps heat on Earth. You do realize that we have much more water in the atmosphere, and water keeps heat much better than carbon? It's not as simple as "more carbon, higher temperatures".
> Short of dimming the sun, I don’t see how you can keep “all this carbon in atmosphere” and still only get 2°C.
This one assumes the carbon is main or even major substance that keeps heat on Earth. You do realize that we have much more water in the atmosphere, and water keeps heat much better than carbon? It's not as simple as "more carbon, higher temperatures".
Yes, and there's a positive feedback loop between the two ("forcing").
I can think of a lot of depressing charts. One showing the IMF's "five year plan" failed is not among them.
It is depressing due to the Y-axis not starting on zero.
>It is depressing due to the Y-axis not starting on zero
It depends on what the focus of the data is. In this case the emphasis is on the difference between the series', not their relative distance from zero. So there's nothing wrong with truncating the axis, particularly on a line chart; why have a bunch of white-space at the bottom?
Context is everything.
It depends on what the focus of the data is. In this case the emphasis is on the difference between the series', not their relative distance from zero. So there's nothing wrong with truncating the axis, particularly on a line chart; why have a bunch of white-space at the bottom?
Context is everything.
Putting too much "emphasis" on certain parts of the graph is precisely what starting the axis at zero is supposed to protect readers from. Context is what we're trying to see!
Edit: And in this case it wouldn't have hurt readability at all. Their point still would've come across just fine.
Edit: And in this case it wouldn't have hurt readability at all. Their point still would've come across just fine.
Start y at zero is not an absolute rule. For a chart like this where it was not aimed at the general audience, and where the chart is intended to forecast change over time, zooming in is fine.
I have very little understanding about economics but I always am scared of large GDP growth because it seems like that is when we go into recession due to bubbles. 1980s led to the recession of the early 1990s. The mid 1990s growth became the 2007-2009 "Great Recession." So this shows growth and it is steady so I don't find this depressing.
edited one word
edited one word
The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism. In order to convince investors to risk their money, the economy must promise a more handsome return on their investment. That's why it's "bad news" when the economy "only" grows by 1-2% per year.
>The problem is that slow, steady growth cannot support capitalism.
That sounds more like a solution.
That sounds more like a solution.
I know it's extremely unpopular with a segment of the economic/political philosophy fundamentalists but maybe it's time to accept that capitalism is flawed and not a cure all solution. Just because something worked under a certain set of conditions doesn't mean it will work well if at all under another set of conditions. Our conditions are clearly changing and we should adapt accordingly.
so we don't support that much casino-style gaming with prospects of billions... not that depressing outlook. mankind will survive and adapt to much worse things than only 1-2% growth.
Show some child abuse/slavery/deaths-by-US-bombs/born-with-cancer-or-hiv graphs, that's way more depressing than this pathetic... something
Show some child abuse/slavery/deaths-by-US-bombs/born-with-cancer-or-hiv graphs, that's way more depressing than this pathetic... something
The gods are unhappy with us :c With should have some offerings process going so the money rains again..
The chart shows 3% to 3.5%.
> edited one word
Dammit. Now I want to know what word that was and how many instances of it did you change. :(
Dammit. Now I want to know what word that was and how many instances of it did you change. :(
I was stupid and read article on ecology and this.
EDIT was:
ecology -> economics
EDIT was:
ecology -> economics
Thanks! And sorry :)
If you look at the underlying table [1], it looks like they will miss it again. Most importantly they keep forecasting China to grow at >6% in the short term. China is in a deep transition right now, 50% of their economy is in investment (building stuff mostly). This was fine in 2008-2011, but right now that has to stop, very quickly. They have run out of productive investments that make sense. Even if they grow at 0% they still need to find $6 Trillion of investment every year!, that's how lopsided their economy is. The transition to consumer and services will take time only because the hole from investment is so large ($6 Trillion/year). The fallout is that other economies that depend on Chinese investment will suffer lower growth as well. China and rest of world dependent on china make maybe 1/2 of the forecasted growth. I question how much will materialize.
[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/01/pdf/0...
[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/01/pdf/0...
"They have run out of productive investments that make sense."
This used to be the definition and justification of recessions. Liquidate recent bad investments so we can start over on a stronger more stable base. At least in the old days.
Now we do coverups and bailouts to delay and increase the inevitable. That's not going to end well.
This used to be the definition and justification of recessions. Liquidate recent bad investments so we can start over on a stronger more stable base. At least in the old days.
Now we do coverups and bailouts to delay and increase the inevitable. That's not going to end well.
Which proves that GDP forecasts especially on a global scale is bullshit.
Continuous growth is another idiotic concept with contradicts with fluctuating, co-evolutionary nature of vastly complex competitive ecosystems (multi-level host-parasite co-evolution).
The difficulty is the same as with forecasting weather in areas with unique microclimates - each tiny valley in Himalaya has its own. One has to monitor its unique conditions to find recurring patterns and constraints.
Global forecasts of wastly complex processes are bullshit and attempts to use avarages is bullshit too.
There are thousands niche microeconomies witchin every region in the wirld, each controlled by its own unique constraints and variables and influenced by some variables of neighborhooring and related niches, etc. There are also climate, sociological, political, cultural factors, etc.
All such complicated models are wrong. They, like myths and religions, have no connection to actual reality while being taken on faith by corresponding sectarians.
Continuous growth is another idiotic concept with contradicts with fluctuating, co-evolutionary nature of vastly complex competitive ecosystems (multi-level host-parasite co-evolution).
The difficulty is the same as with forecasting weather in areas with unique microclimates - each tiny valley in Himalaya has its own. One has to monitor its unique conditions to find recurring patterns and constraints.
Global forecasts of wastly complex processes are bullshit and attempts to use avarages is bullshit too.
There are thousands niche microeconomies witchin every region in the wirld, each controlled by its own unique constraints and variables and influenced by some variables of neighborhooring and related niches, etc. There are also climate, sociological, political, cultural factors, etc.
All such complicated models are wrong. They, like myths and religions, have no connection to actual reality while being taken on faith by corresponding sectarians.
GDP isn't bullshit, but it doesn't necessarily matter as much as other macroeconomic measures. For instance, some other commenters here have mentioned demographics, our projected carbon footprint, or levels of extreme poverty as being a more important focus.
Forecasting is.
Why did the IMF predict in each and every year that the downturn is over and the economy is going to grow in the next year? Is this perhaps a positive psychology thing?
Or is it only IMF? I've tried to find other predictions, and for example, the World Bank seems to be counting with a less rosy 2.9%: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-bank-downgrades-global-eco...
Or is it only IMF? I've tried to find other predictions, and for example, the World Bank seems to be counting with a less rosy 2.9%: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-bank-downgrades-global-eco...
Troubling, but a positive sign is that extreme poverty is below 10%: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-ex...
There are fewer hungry people in the world today compared to 20 years ago, in spite adding 1 billion people to the planet.
There are fewer hungry people in the world today compared to 20 years ago, in spite adding 1 billion people to the planet.
I love how every forecast is all like:
> HEY KIDS! THIS TIME WE'RE REALLY GONNA BOUNCE RIGHT BACK! WHEEEE!
Wat? Lower growth than expected by some organization to whom nobody looks for accurate growth forecasts? That's depressing?
Seems to me from my naive viewpoint that efficiency also needs to be taken into account. If my disposable incomes is fixed but each year we get better at making all the things I need so they cost less then, yes, growth in GDP will be stagnant or even declining but every year I will be better off (more stuff) than the year before.
This "growth rate" measured in percent has always concerned me. It looks to be unsustainable. Interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
For me, post-demographic transition population pyramids are much more depressing. We can live without growth. Can we live without us?
Something like https://alfinnextlevel.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/736px-pop...
Something like https://alfinnextlevel.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/736px-pop...
I've always been a cannibal strategy investor when it comes to my AMZN holdings
That doesn't look depressing. That looks unreservedly optimistic.
Businessinsider = clickbait
Is current level of growth even sustainable? (regarding environment, lifestyle issues --stress, depression, etc.--, quality of production, time for people to adapt to new paradigms, etc)?
How about less "growth" and better distribution, more quality, less rat racing?