tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184121284208439755.post7770288957005981382..comments2010-01-04T08:01:03.936-05:00Chris Lawrencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07305747866146613339c4nadaguy@gmail.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184121284208439755.post-59452381392315494132010-01-04T08:01:03.936-05:002010-01-04T08:01:03.936-05:00Hi Michael, thanks for the comments. I would agree that technology helps us to better use our resources, and that improved technology can allow them to be used more efficiently. However, technology cannot function without energy, and our most dense energy resources are finite and limited (i.e. fossil fuels.) Do you think economic growth is possible without fossil fuels?Canada Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07305747866146613339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3184121284208439755.post-33131035922805330092010-01-04T07:03:21.554-05:002010-01-04T07:03:21.554-05:00If we accept that economic growth derives from either the continued influx of resources (natural as well as human) or from the expansion of resource use (organisational and technological development) we have a much more holistic view on economics. As I understand your post it is focused entirely on the first component and completely ignores the second. <br />For instance you relate that especially the past 100 years have relied on &#39;exponential increase in resource use&#39; as the cause of economic growh. I take it that you completely ignore the fair bit of technological and organisational development in the same time-period?<br /><br />I also cannot help but wonder (as usual) on the claims of exponential growth and the existence of limits to growth in context but with no connection. Do you not agree that the existence of the later is what makes the first a false claim? I accept that to speak of exponential growth you do not need a fixed growth rate per se - as long as its a positive number there will be a doubling time. However you still have to account for the number being positive over time and to relate the &#39;new&#39; (marginal contribution) growth to resource use. <br /><br />Much like in demographics you have aggregate growth from transitionary effects. These are not consistent but rather spatially limited over time. Not recognizing this leads to overestimating future growth based on past growth.Michael Leor (Denmark)noreply@blogger.com