Modeling the Economy As a Physics Problem 452
University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem — and comes to some controversial conclusions: that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal Climatic Change. "[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. ... 'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says. 'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine' that 'consumes energy and does "work" in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,' he says. That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,' Garrett says. ... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
Its a population crunch (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to stop somewhere. At six billion or six trillion. It has to happen. The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation. Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.
Or we can learn to regulate our population, as the Chinese are trying to do. Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility. But have China and India gone too far for this to work? I am sure the US nearly did, because you have to wear high birth rates and high energy consumption at the same time for a while (the 1950s) for it to work. The same peak would put the energy consumption of 10 billion USA or AU people in China alone.
Don't ask me for help. I'll be starting a farm on Ganymede.
Re:Interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
When someone buys a more fuel efficient car, they often end up driving more miles than before since it costs them less per mile, thus negating much of the fuel savings.
Adjusting for Inflation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
The marginal value of your first dollar, or 10 dollars(depending on local cost of living), is enormous. You get to eat. The marginal value of your 1,000,001th dollar is a great deal smaller.
There isn't a fixed "ceiling" above which people demand no more energy; but there are a number of "floors" below which things get really ugly, really fast(like, "Rwandan Genocide" bad, not just "I want a cooler yacht" bad). If you can increase efficiency enough, it should be possible to reduce the amount of damage that needs to be done in order to head off genuinely bad outcomes.
There is also a second factor to consider: When people are desperate(or ignorant, or stupid), they will be willing to consume their capital to survive. Destroying fish stocks by catching juveniles, farming harder and harder until the topsoil erodes, polluting water supplies, eating the seed corn, deforestation to make charcoal(on the subject of deforestation, compare the Dominican Republic with Haiti. Same island, same location, one country has its forests, one doesn't. The Dominican Republic is merely poor. Haiti is deeply fucked.), and so forth. Even in strict economic terms(i.e. setting the intrinsic worth of "the environment", beyond its practical utility, at 0) this is a stupid plan. If the alternative is starving, though, people will do it anyway. If efficiency increases, fewer people will be desperate enough to eat their capital instead of their income.
We already knew that (Score:3, Insightful)
The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.
Sorry, but that's the truth.
And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones. That is all, carry on.
Re:Simple Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are environmental Garden of Edens.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
It has a certain sci-fi appeal, and there isn't anything wrong with trying; but it neither solves the problems in dish one, nor exempts dishes two through N from the same problems.
Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System (Score:5, Insightful)
When we conserve energy, we can and do use the saved energy for other activities. "conservation" is not really conservation if we promptly use the saved energy for another activity.
Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production. Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20%: we return to the original problem.
In the long run, the 4 horsemen will eventually impose their own solution on humankind. Many people will die in the process.
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?
Massive fail (Score:2, Insightful)
Human's are not machines. We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us. We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior. In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit. Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make. Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior. Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior. The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate. Humans are irrational. Physics is rational. Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
It's tragedy of the commons.
You see, everyone wants to have a healthy planet, but nobody wants to be stuck holding the bag if they're the only ones restraining their consumption.
Re:We already knew that (Score:2, Insightful)
One nuclear power plant a day (Score:5, Insightful)
"or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day."
I don't have a problem with this. Let's get building.
Eventually we'll turn towards the sun, and nuclear will only be our failsafe, but I have no problem with it filling in the gaps.
Re:Someone, enlighten me... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that most people think that the problem is the rest of the population. The portion of the population that makes up their culture is usually not considered to be part of the problem, but everyone else is.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation."
The trick is to be the killers instead of the dead, and the fed instead of the starving. Should it come down to that, I suspect we'll find it easy to shitcan idealism and kill our competition.
Given a choice between theirs and ours, I'll choose ours.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:2, Insightful)
It also explains why there are no signs of super civilizations out there. Basically organic life is too stupid to stop population growth before it destroys its environment. I'm glad I lived in the last century before the human race realized that it was going to die out because of the inbuilt greed of our genes which multiplied by our intelligence guarantee our extinction.
So long and thanks for all the fish, I'm out of here.
Re:Somewhat like safer cars (Score:3, Insightful)
As a bike rider I find that hilarious.
Re:Gee wizz.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality. Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine. No wonder he's been panned. Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.
So economists are trying to figure things out from first principles, and having a rather difficult time because their necessary simplifying assumptions could possibly be simplifying away things that actually matter. While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?". He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens"), and doesn't really need a foundation in human behavior. Much like we can know what gravity does, without actually having found a graviton or whatever current theories say we should find.
Freejack (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft was forced to deal with the fact that their software is responsible for ninety-five percent of virus infections, but instead of, Oh I don't know - MAKING THEM BUILD BETTER SOFTWARE - , we simply require that they pay for the tuition of every High School graduate who wants to get a degree in Computer Science.
Freejack. If this system survives longer than twenty-five years, Al Gore and every other person on the inside will live in secure cities with fresh water, abundant food and toss scraps to the rest of the world to feed the need for compassion.
As for me, I've got my money on the zoo of the future. Imagine being able to see the extinct Blue Jay, Cardinal, and if you are really lucky an Eagle.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Dateline 1488: William Howell purchases a nice manor in Buckinghamshire, England but has a recurring nightmare that he is living 521 years in the future. Sucks to be him.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:5, Insightful)
A common sentiment, shared by every generation since civilization began.
Re:Someone, enlighten me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:5, Insightful)
All of which is completely obvious and has been pointed out before (I know, because I'm one of those who has pointed it out). Usual response is some blather about alternative energy (easily shown to be inadequate, especially given other environmental constraints), conservation (law of diminishing returns), or lifestyle changes (kills economy, and besides, won't happen without major force). Usually, at some point the environmentalist will give up and claim the realist is just being too much of a pessimist.
Re:We Can Win (Score:2, Insightful)
If we apply serious birth control laws we can actually shrink world population and use less and less energy while maintaining increasing living standards.
Don't forget that part. It's important.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another implication... (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how you assume that they will die to save us.
They will die to save us because I refuse to die to save them.
Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System (Score:5, Insightful)
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?
The difference is that those people who believe that technology will allow the human race to overcome its limits have been proven right multiple times over the historical record. Those people who believe that $deity will come down and make everything right for us have less of a track record of successes.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:4, Insightful)
"Thinning the herd" is much more effective and efficient when governments do it to their own people than when they go to war with other countries. Yes, hundreds of thousands died in WWII, but the Ottoman Turks killed a million Armenians during the prior decade. 30 million Chinese were killed by Mao Zedong, and 50 million more died of starvation as he took over the means of production and reorganized the farmlands. 25 million in the Soviet Union were killed by Stalin's government. The Germans lost 5 million soldiers during the war, but slaughtered 12 million within their own country, 6 million just for being Jewish. 2 million were killed in Cambodia when Pol Pot's government took over.
So the best method of reducing population would be to set up a global despotic government. I see that's what they're planning in Copenhagen, so I guess our beneficent leaders have the situation in hand.
Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, with the current amount of food grown, everyone could eat well.
But feeding everyone in the world isn't as profitable as growing plants, and feeding the output to animals (wasting energy in the process) to sell to rich affluent first worlders.
It's one of the reasons why people starve. Other reasons why people are starving include war and failed politics. For example, under the current corrupt ruler jn Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe turned from a net exporter to a net importer of food, as the population starves and the economy collapes in such a way that it invites disbelief to outsiders (one aspect was inflation reaching 10000000000000000000000% in 2008).
As for the limiting factor on population, the four horsemen doesn't seem to be the main limiting factor. Instead, the limiting factor, at least in a large part of the world, seems to be affluence. Children shift from being a blessing to an economic burden.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
physical economy (Score:3, Insightful)
as far as most economists go, the physical economy is pretty much off the radar screen. I consider this study to be about the physical economy. No wonder economists do not like it. And the author observes that collapse or reduction in living standards is not much discussed. I wonder why. But we are getting austerity policies to pay for bailing out the speculators while the physical economy collapses.
So here is something that seems to be true and relevant. Considering humans, from before fire and on, we have made our living by increased energy *density*. We seem, especially from the study, to get population density from increased energy, but new fundamental physical principles come from the density, and thus the really new tech.
What we need to do right now is get rid of monetarist stuff like the 1.5 quadrillion dollars of derivatives. The waste has killed the physical economy. This is no longer enough, but it is obvious and part of a possibly successful approach.
Climate Models Proved Useless (Score:1, Insightful)
The Earth isn't following the climate models, it missed the memo. Truth is we're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [spiegel.de]
It's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not "climatologists", whatever the hell those are. I didn't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree. The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, it's 0.5% of the land mass there while the other 99.5% of Antarctica has been *cooling* since the 1960s. That's real science, folks. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml [agu.org]
"The sea levels are rising!". The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years, thankfully it's slowed down the past 2,000 years!
"Carbon dioxide levels are at record high, it's a dangerous greenhouse gas!". The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor, its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined! Carbon dioxide is reactive, it increases after the earth warms. horse. cart. Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens. Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase!
Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out, that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50+ years. Solar output at record high in late 90s. Sun driving climate, what a shocker.
Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to answer for dintlu, and I'm really going to talk about famine rather than starvation per se, but:
"They're being prevented from feeding themselves" is not a bad answer. In Somalia in 1992, the people most affected by the famine, perversely, were the farmers, who were also part of the lowest social class.
In any case, the point is that famines are caused not by a lack of food, but by problems distributing food.
Food distribution is done poorly by governments that don't have their people's best interests in mind, e.g. because the government is a dictatorship or oligarchy and doesn't need to pay attention to what the people want. Conversely, famines don't happen in democratic societies with a free press - democracies have to respect the will of the people, and a free press would let the people know if food distribution is failing.
All of this is according to the work of Amartya Sen, who won a Nobel Prize for it.
TSG
Have to disagree with you on one part (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists and engineers have a long and detailed history of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems. Religion, on the other hand, places the burden of the final proof on the far side of death, and has no real track record of delivering on their promises.
These things are not equivalent at all. Not even close.
Re:Another implication... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nukes may not be forever, but neither is the sun, nuke are definitely for long enough though.
Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, humans are uniquely bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a side issue, but this is complete hogwash. Every organism will increase as much as possible - they don't "instinctively" come to equilibrium, equilibrium is forced on them by competition. In the event that an organism becomes so well adapted that it dominates its competition, its numbers will increase until it dies off as a result of increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. A good example: snow geese. For many years, snow goose populations were very low because their natural habitats were limited. But then, beginning about in the 70's, two things happened: 1) snowy owl populations increased in the far north, which had the effect of increasing snow goose nesting success by driving away snow goose predators, and 2) snow geese learned to exploit a new (to them) resource: agricultural waste. As a result of those two factors, the snow goose population exploded. Unfortunately, however, it didn't "come to equilibrium" with its environment - snow geese are now so overpopulated that they're destroying both their spring breeding grounds and their wintering grounds. Unless the population can be gotten under control through hunting (which so far has had pretty limited success), a population crash is inevitable
There are other examples of the same phenomenon in other species, but what's relevant here is that humans are just an extreme example. We are so tremendously adaptable that we've been able to colonize nearly every environment on the surface of the earth, and have so outstripped every other creature that our population has grown too much for the earth to support it. That's a real problem, and I don't mean to pooh-pooh it. But I do get annoyed when I hear more examples of the meme that "animals (and primitive humans) lived in harmony with the earth, but evil (modern) man has forgotten how to do this". It's just not true - all species expand to fill all available space in whatever niche they occupy.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Every additional person is productive over his lifetime on the average. Plus, there is ever increasing capital wealth, multiplying productivity per person. My siblings and I are not on the farm (but we did work in my father's construction firm at one point). But if may parents' pension goes kablooey, there's enough of us producing enough so that they'll have no problems.
This is only true in the case of unlimited resources. Once you start to run out of land, oil, water, minerals, etc. then each additional person becomes an increasing liability. You can only be productive in relation to the amount of resources available to you. All realistic models of population growth show that adding additional members to make a population more effective only work up to a certain point, past that you experience diminishing returns and each new member becomes a liability. Yes, the death rate offsets this to some extent but only if it tracks the birth rate and keeps the population relatively stable.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
***"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." -Kenneth Boulding***
Absolutely.
And conversely, if your only modeling tool is an exponential equation, every trend looks like a catastrophe.
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to see that same chart in linear mode -- presenting it in logarythmic mode is kinda deceptive. For contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Its a population crunch (Score:3, Insightful)
Then show it
Explain it
Prove it
What you do is rhetorics, not a scientific discussion.
I think the guy has just got lost in his own model, which tries to liken such a complex thing as the human civbilisation with a simple physical system, employing a constant relationship between global energy use and the civilisation's accumulated economic productivity. This is just naive...
But talking about physical modelling: Is it not intuitively correct to assume that no system can grown limitless, that there must be an upper bound for everything? Then why does our economy need to grow all the time? Why can't we just be content with a very high output? Does it need to increase all the time? And worse, does the growth need to increase all the time? This is like driving a car very fast not being enough, but we need to accelerate all the time right into infinity. This is not possible according to physics, but according to economics it is not only possible but demanded. Silly... which is exactly why Economics is not a science and because there is no Nobel Prize for economics.
Re:We already knew that (Score:2, Insightful)
Climategate is a bunch of emails taken out of context, from a minor subset of researchers, misinterpreted by idiots.