Reply #29: We may actually need negative growth.

[Gregorian]

I've been sitting here thinking about the beginning of the exponential curve versus the vertical part where we are now. It's funny that I'd be out in a forest on my mountain bike thinking of logarithms and calculus.

This is strictly aside from what you were saying. The economic aspect is something that needs addressing. I think it could be called the humanitarian side.

In the beginning, we could double without any trouble. A million people became two million. It was probably a benefit. The planet didn't notice we were even here. But as we approached a certain size, the planet began to suffer under our strain. Mostly combustion byproducts.

The question I've been asking is, is the planet sustaining us? We're alive, so it seems that it is. But I argue that it isn't. With poles melting, temperatures increasing, fish depleted, it very well appears that it isn't sustaining us. And this has great ramifications. It means that we are already too big, and we cannot grow. It means that if we do grow, we're going to see trouble far greater than is appearing now. These are words. I almost doubt they mean much. But if I could express what I see in my brain, it would be clear that we're actually in much greater trouble than appears to be the case.

1% growth of the human race means doubling in 70 years. 14 billion people in little over a half century. That is scary as hell considering only one percent growth!

We absolutely cannot grow. At all. And in fact, with respect to what you are saying, if we do grow, I would wager that the situation of hoarding would be far far worse. That's because the resources are finite.