what's /pol/ opinion on zero growth and degrowth?

>>128566323
“The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.”

― Theodore J. Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future

File: 1472027402751.jpg (239KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1920x1080px

>>128566323
In order to have continuous growth we need to set our sights to the stars, asteroid mining, space colonies, etc.

Which is what the Europeans did back at the discovery era.

It's quite obvious that growth cannon be sustained for much longer. The USA has had terrible growth numbers for a decade, and Trump won't change that. The EU is in an even worse position. "Free" trade has barely helped.

>>128566323
think about how japans population is predicted to shrink ''if they dont allow immigrants''
yet japan is very overcrowded,
[europe also has a high population density]
why would it be so bad to be /less/ crowded, but still a functioning fist world nation?

>>128566700
The problem with Japan is that there are barely any new workers entering the workforce, which means that it will get harder and harder to support the pensionists in the future.

>>128566467
That's an interesting quote Canada. And that's true, I've always been amazed at how the conservative/progressive distribution of opinions is reversed between leftists and the right on the subjects of technological progress and economic globalism.
>>128566572
True, especially when you consider that the growth figures in Europe (and I guess in the US) have been voluntarily overestimated.
>>128566700
>why would it be so bad to be /less/ crowded, but still a functioning fist world nation?
Well the Ponzi scheme that is our pension systems has trapped us into the duty of constant demographic growth. Although, unlike EU elites, I don't think (or pretend to think) African immigrants will produce enough value to make it sustainable

>>128566323
As long as your population isn't growing, it's no problem at all.

>>128568750
Then why isn't the subject debated more in Europe or Japan?

File: vision.png (21KB, 1205x561px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1205x561px

hey i was thinking about this the other night, and came up with this thought. What if pop growth will autoreglate itself as the time passes. think of it this way:
1. population is growing, technology advances, pop is growing even more, surpassing the technological capabilities of sustaining the whole population, thus the pop starts to or not breed since there is a lack of resources.
2. population will decline until it's number can be sustained, or until another technological advancement will be made to sustain a bigger number of people
3. repeat #1

this will continue either until there will be established a optimum number of people on the planet for which there is no lack of resources, or until the tech advancement will not be able to provide any more sustenance for food resources to grow.
graph provided for clarity

>>128568974
Returns to capital are chiefly dictated by the available capital and labor. Maybe people with a lot of capital aren't too hot on the idea of its devaluation?

>>128566323
>how the desire for constant economic growth has been part of western societies' tendency to develop public debt to sustain demand.

No, it was the force behind the West's accumulation of great wealth. The drive for constant consumption is what destroyed the wealth.

>>128569259
I agree with your view on natural regulation of demographic growth. But you have to also take into account immigration (at least for western societies) which IMO plays a major role in our the demographic slump.

>>128569391
You're correct, and it's even more prevalent in ageing societies like ours.

>>128569931
in a perfect world immigration would not be allowed, but since we live in a world ruled by (((them))) it's hard to evaluate any natural population change in western world since all the surplus of humans from undeveloped countries, which normally would die of starvation, are being sent here, and the ones that remain there breed continuously like rats with no vision to the future.

File: homomaltusiens.jpg (76KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x720px

>>128566323
the public debt is not to sustain demand
it's just so to blindly fund outstanding gibs
which is what most hampers economic growth
you're French: you should know

also, a function can both be capped, and grow indefinitely, eg f(x)=-e^-x + 3 (science, it's magic!)

anyway, economic growth isn't only based on available material resources
degrowers are materialists first and foremost, and fucktarded ones at that
wealth creation now mostly is based on services, which is a subjective factor: people pay for a service they decide to value, creating wealth ex nihilo
calm your tits and deal with it

>>128569259
I think assuming that's how it's worked so far is very sensible. There's been great population booms when new land was claimed, or for example iron tools spread allowing people to till and farm tougher soil.

I see two problems with it though, you assume the fluctuations to be continually decreasing and tending to 0. I don't see a reason why. The second point may be related to it. Short-term measures can both increase your population a good deal above the equilibrium point, and they could also have a negative long-term impact on the equilibrium point itself(think primitive farming, peak oil etc).

Then there's the fact agricultural output(if that is the deciding factor) is pretty damn volatile so the equilibrium point is changing on a year by year basis.

>>128570893
>agricultural output(if that is the deciding factor) is pretty damn volatile so the equilibrium point is changing on a year by year basis.
yes it is, but it does not change that much if the technology hasn't advanced much in one year.

>you assume the fluctuations to be continually decreasing and tending to 0.
no, i don't. i assume the fluctuations tend to stabilize at the optimum number of people, which changes decade after decade with the tech advance in agricultural field primarily. it would tend to 0 once there would be no agricultural output at all.

>Short-term measures can both increase your population a good deal above the equilibrium point, and they could also have a negative long-term impact on the equilibrium point itself
it doesn't matter, the population will die as quickly from starvation if the planet will overpopulate and the cycle will be just a bit more pronounced than the previous decades, rather than be more ameliorated. either way, people should be able to understand by that time (after 4-5 cycles) that short-measures above the planet limitations will turn upon them later, they'll learn it the hard way if they will not think it through.

>>128566323
>what is the economic end game
colonization of all of space and I will die before I will stop moving towards that goal