Will economic growth destroy the planet?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 01. 2024
- The critique of capitalism, attributing instability and growing wealth inequality to the free market, reflects concerns about the current economic system. The assertion that greed is driving this inequality and could lead to economic and social collapse underscores the perceived negative impact of unchecked capitalism. Some argue for a paradigm shift towards degrowth, a concept aiming to simultaneously reduce GDP and enhance living standards. However, skepticism arises as achieving this delicate balance appears impractical.
While the de-growth movement emphasizes the need to address environmental concerns and resource depletion, historical data challenges the idea that economic growth is inherently detrimental. Over the past few decades, global population has doubled, yet resources haven't been depleted, and some animal populations have even increased. The Environmental Kuznets Curve suggests that, with higher incomes, economies can transition to more environmentally sustainable practices. This perspective counters the de-growth narrative, asserting that growth can lead to improved environmental outcomes.
Critics argue that economic growth remains essential, particularly in developing economies, to alleviate poverty. Economic growth has demonstrably lifted millions out of extreme poverty, correlating strongly with increased life expectancy. While the de-growth movement focuses on inequality, it sometimes overlooks the positive impact of growth in reducing poverty and promoting overall societal well-being. Thus, the debate between advocating for de-growth to address environmental concerns and supporting economic growth to combat poverty remains a complex and nuanced discussion.
Read more about this in Gene Tunny's paper: www.cis.org.au/publication/de...
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
Telegram - t.me/centreforindependentstudies
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/
Should governments regulate businesses to stop climate change?
Government is the umpire, they hold the whistle, they protect both individual rights and the commonwealth. The best games are both high scoring and sustainable - this is called human flourishing. Protecting Australia's natural environment from pollution for the commonwealth is important for a sustainable game across generations. Protecting business from unnecessary red & green tape, to create a level playing field where voluntary contracts are efficiently enforced, is how we get the highest scoring games in which society maximally flourishes. It is incumbent upon government to prove the climate harm in climate change, to quantify and justify, before burdening the citizenry with laws that reduce wealth & flourishing.
“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose--that it may violate property instead of protecting it--then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
Climate puritans don't realise that banning cheap power literally costs lives in poor countries.
I don't think endless growth for its own sake is wise, though.
Right on. Build reactors. Lots and lots of reactors. And then build more.
There is no historical evidence of economic slow-down or crash ever being associated with warmer weather. On the contrary, it is the cold that brings starvation and war with it.
It's the shifting of climate behavior that's the risk. The problem is that all property is owned. So if we erode ecosystem resources as part of a total warming effort, we create systemic property in regions where it wouldn't have existed. Of course, compensation to the victims would mitigate this. No different how someone could over consume an aquifer and then just compensate the other users who have lost the water from the profits
@@qjsharing2408 The total warming we've seen over the century past has been less than 1°C. This is entirely within the bounds of natural centennial global temperature variability which has been 0.82±0.27°C/century over the past 8,000 years, based on ice core data. In other words there is no observable "global warming" beyond the normal fluctuation, and, based on the lack of severe weather events signal, no "climate change" either. It's all baloney.
So much to go through here. The capitalists won’t accept a decrease in production since that might lead to a decrease in profit.
Secondly, the global south is poor because they produce the things that we need in the global north. The riches then go to the capitalists, not the workers.
Thirdly, capitalism hasn’t lifted anyone out of poverty. Capitalism is the reason why extreme poverty existed. Social programs are the reason why extreme poverty has been reduced. See: “capitalism and extreme poverty: a global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century”.
Growth isn’t inherently connected to innovation. Innovation in capitalism means “what’s profitable”, not “what’s useful”. Growth in capitalism means ten different phones that do exactly the same thing or ten different headphones that do the exact same thing and is in the same price range. Why not focus on getting people’s basic needs met first?
Videos like these exist because if we stop growing, we collapse. Again. Just like we do every ten years. Maybe if we were to change the system itself, we wouldn’t have to face that.
I think commerce and technological innovation has lifted living standards even in the 3rd world. Electricity and gas heating and petrol / Diesel vehicles allow more work to be done in less time. The western world lived with wood or coal burning stoves./ Heating until just a few years ago. Piped natural gas only got to some of Melbourne's outer suburbs in the 1970's. Before that people heated with briquettes. Living standards have definitely improved. Does this mean that there is less extreme poverty? I think so. Is expanding commerce a reason for increased wealth shared amongst the population? I think so. Does expanding commerce allow for more varied work opportunities? I think so. I think that commerce is different from capitalism, which I think is an ideology. I don't think capitalism is great. I think there is too much greed involved. However I think that greed can't be solved with government involvement, it takes people to do some spiritual inner work to get the balance right. Charging too much is selfish, but charging too little is not valuing yourself or your skills enough. Balance is important and we just need to get the economic balance right.