No need to task a random redditor with devising a new economic paradigm, turns out one or two discerning experts spotted the trouble with the whole "the economy can grow forever!" concept. They spotted it pretty early, in fact. Adam Smith literally wrote about this problem.
I was unfamiliar with it, so I took a look on Wikipedia (hardly the most reliable or in-depth source, but it’s a fine beginning for most things) and I’m certainly no expert, but there is a glaring flaw in the base concept (just like capitalism/supply & demand break down with a very simple thought experiment, ie - the monopoly). In a stable state economy, it hinges on a “constant population size” which might seem ok on paper, but it’s something that goes against human nature. I’m unaware of any successful state-mandated population control, but I have heard of the One Child Policy and that wasn’t pretty.
EDIT: Some pointed out that population is trending towards a “constant size”, and it’s a fair point. And it’s true that in some developed nations, population rates can & have fallen below replacement levels.
My point stands that it’s no trivial thing to maintain a “constant population size”.
My comment wasn’t meant as a sweeping condemnation of “steady state economy” any more than monopolies are a sweeping condemnation of capitalism. Just because it’s a flaw, it doesn’t mean there is no solution.
Also your assumption to fully understand human nature and that stable population size goes against it is just bonkers. I feel like you're just looking back historically and saying that's the way it's always supposed to be now and forever and ignoring the reasons why we had so many more children in the past. Like your brain is trying to think, but it's just stopping halfway through on every thought and regurgitating things like "One Child Policy = bad" "Wikipedia = unreliable" with no attempt to understand the mechanisms behind why.
Imagine reading "hardly the most reliable or in-depth source, but it’s a fine beginning for most things" and stopping halfway through that to just get "Wikipedia = unreliable".
Imagine reading "hardly the most reliable" and not understanding that the tone is not positive and the implication is that Wikipedia is...not very reliable.
It's clear you're hardly the most astute reader, but this is a fine beginner level interpretation of basic English and probably your level best.
Now, if you feel insulted by that statement you should bear in mind the implications that feeling carries for the truth of your past comment.
Population sizes tend to stabilize. If you look at many developed nations, they're actually struggling with the opposite - people aren't having enough children to support aging older generations.
No "might" about it: it's already underway. Almost all countries with well-developed economies either have shrinking populations (anti-immigration policies) or populations increasing only through the addition of immigrants.
I appreciate the additional context you edited into this comment (the pre-edit stand-alone comment, maybe less so).
I never said that “infinite reproduction is human nature”. I used the phrase “human nature”* as shorthand for “humans are chaotic” and (in the US at least) tend to resent regulations on what are general considered deeply personal choices. And we’re looking at birth rates over a huge population. Using the current US birth rate of 1.6, you can extrapolate that for every couple with 10 kids, you have ~12 other people with no children (and all the shades of grey in between). That points to a lot of complexity in human behavior to try to regulate.
I added a bit more to my original comment, but I still stand by my attitude of ’good luck with that’ when it comes to maintaining a “constant population size” as a prerequisite for this economic system.
You're not wrong, humans are chaotic, but the birth rate in most developed nations is literally below replacement rate. The human population is forecasted to stabilize without any real need for regulation that, I agree, would be deeply unpopular wherever it was implemented.
Honestly all this talk about alternative economic paradigms are just hypothetical waffling as far as I'm concerned, I said in another comment that our exact form of growth capitalism will not die unless external factors kill it.
I don't think we're smart or forward-thinking enough to preempt our own destruction when the price we'd have to pay is giving up some comfort, indulgence, and the promise of "more" that we operate under today (i.e. individuals' economic goals/dreams).
The alternative to adopting some kind of a more steady-state sustainable economic model is quite literally to continue to reproduce and consume the planet's resources until we cause our own deaths via damage to our host caused by the accumulation of our waste. Which is the path we currently seem to be on (renewables investments notwithstanding). Coincidentally, it's the way a lot of more primitive organisms operate - lots of bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc do this exact same thing.
I was never under the impression we were going to get to 2030 and everyone was going to be like, "welp, let's flip the switch on the new economic system!"
Rather that we'll be forced, by the reality of the planet quite literally dying as a result of our current system, to adopt some other way of transacting with one another.
Definitely a very complicated subject, and probably not the best venue to have such a discussion, so I’ll leave it be, heh
But regarding your “waffling” comment, I’ll bastardize an Eisenhower quote: “plans are useless, but planning is essential”. That is to say these mental exercises do serve a purpose, and bring us closer to a more complete solution (even if they aren’t a solution themselves)
115
u/Captain_Pumpkinhead 8h ago
Sounds like we need a better engine.