Talk:Economic growth
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic growth Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Message box".Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Connected contributor User:MiszaBot/config Template:Annual readership
Bad physics in the section criticizing endless growth?
The section Economic growth#Possibility of infinite economic growth, trying to criticize the idea, doesn't seem to make any sense from a physics perspective. I don't know if this material represents the source poorly, or if the source is misunderstanding physics that badly, or what.
For example: Template:Tq And so on. This all seems like a major misunderstanding of thermodynamics, akin to people who claim it disproves evolution. The world is constantly receiving a large supply of energy from the Sun, which even now can be harnessed by renewable energy such as solar power (and wind, as the world's weather is driven by solar energy; etc). Natural ecosystems recycle their waste thanks to the input of low entropy from the Sun, and so could an economy in theory; there is no need for an animal to "live on its own waste".
It's one thing to argue that literally infinite growth isn't possible, but this seems to go way beyond that, and the material here about waste recycling and energy input just seems really confused. I don't think any economist would seriously consider the economy as a perpetual motion machine any more than any other natural system. Crossroads -talk- 01:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There are mainstream sources who have dealt with this issue, which should rather be emphasized. The section should be deleted, and a comment on the discussion of infinite growth possibilities and thermodynamics (ultimately a natural resource constraint) explaining the mainstream view could be inserted into the preceding paragraph on environmental impact. The discussion needs also to point out the distinction between growth in a physical sense and growth in the economic value, which is what GDP growth measures count: Economic growth means not only more goods, but goods of a better quality, too. Økonom (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds good to me. Crossroads -talk- 22:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it. New material as described above probably wouldn't benefit from using the old material. Crossroads -talk- 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)