There are some good points here: it certainly seems the growth of derivative financial products, and the whole financial sector, has outpaced what the "concrete" economy can support. But the claim that the Earth is full? Absurd.
Clearly, we have some serious environmental limitations. CO2 emissions, rainforests, overpopulation, etc. But this Earth is wonderfully well-stocked with potential sources of energy and other resources. We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet, but over time, new inventions and discoveries tend to expose them. The same process also helps us improve the value of resources we already have, like people and (until recently :) capital.
Basically, this is the Peak Oil argument applied to the whole economy. Popular in doom-n-gloom times, unmentioned in the good times. It's a useful extreme to consider, but it is an extreme.
"We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet.."
I would modify this a little with the following: "We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet or we don't want to use all of them yet..." Hero of Alexandria, for all practical purposes, discovered the use of steam power, but because labor was so cheap, it was never pursued.
The earth won't be full until we've turned every available inch of fertile soil into farm land.
And that includes what ever the Dutch can do to to farm on ex-ocean floor.
I'd rather avoid that scenario though.
Luckily as their development continues, birth rates in the developing world are dropping.
I'm fairly hopeful that global population growth will peak within our life times.
Also, growing an economy on the back of a growing population is the easiest way to grow but not the only one.
You can produce more and more valuable things with a static population.
Comments
There are some good points here: it certainly seems the growth of derivative financial products, and the whole financial sector, has outpaced what the "concrete" economy can support. But the claim that the Earth is full? Absurd.
Clearly, we have some serious environmental limitations. CO2 emissions, rainforests, overpopulation, etc. But this Earth is wonderfully well-stocked with potential sources of energy and other resources. We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet, but over time, new inventions and discoveries tend to expose them. The same process also helps us improve the value of resources we already have, like people and (until recently :) capital.
Basically, this is the Peak Oil argument applied to the whole economy. Popular in doom-n-gloom times, unmentioned in the good times. It's a useful extreme to consider, but it is an extreme.
"We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet.."
I would modify this a little with the following: "We haven't figured out how to use all of them yet or we don't want to use all of them yet..." Hero of Alexandria, for all practical purposes, discovered the use of steam power, but because labor was so cheap, it was never pursued.
The explanation is actually more complex..
The earth won't be full until we've turned every available inch of fertile soil into farm land. And that includes what ever the Dutch can do to to farm on ex-ocean floor.
I'd rather avoid that scenario though. Luckily as their development continues, birth rates in the developing world are dropping. I'm fairly hopeful that global population growth will peak within our life times.
Also, growing an economy on the back of a growing population is the easiest way to grow but not the only one.
You can produce more and more valuable things with a static population.
> I'm fairly hopeful that global population growth will peak within our life times.
2075, at <10 billion, according to a study that I can't find at the moment...