Comments on: Scope Insensitivity

By: social security benefits taxable

social security benefits taxable — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:42:11 +0000

[...] the business world, which is presumably rational, timelines often stretch no further than the nexthttp://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/06/21/scope-insensitivity/Are Your Social Security Benefits Taxable?Are Your social security benefits Taxable? IRS TAX TIP [...]

By: Roger Brown

Roger Brown — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:51:42 +0000

That the human population of the earth will eventually stop growing is indeed inevitable. That the earth’s resources can support 8.5 billion people at standards of living far above that which the U.S. enjoys today is far from self-evident (Since, according to your account, in fifty years time we are still going to be pursing economic growth, I presume that we will be richer then than we are today). I assume that you are planning on the rest of humanity catching up to our standard of living by the end of the century. It is certainly clear that the only thing that will prevent China and India from doing so is resource limitations, which you claim do not exist or which will ‘inevitably’ be overcome by technological cleverness. I am a technologically inclined person myself, with an advanced science degree and twenty-two years of engineering experience in Silicon Valley, but I do not share your optimism about the inevitability of resource abundance in a world with 8 billion plus human beings.

I do not think that our economic goal should be to get richer forever, but to live well within the limits of a finite world. It is true, of course, that no one knows for certain what those limits are, but assuming that they are far distant and putting the pedal to metal of economic growth does not appear to me to be an intelligent strategy. Sooner or later we are going to have create economic and social institutions that do not require constant growth for ‘healthy’ functioning. I will not bother to describe my vision of such institutions (They are something far different than what Al Gore is promoting) since I am sure that such a description would cause you to make the sign of the cross to ward off the evil ‘S’ monster. I am afraid that I am one of those benighted people who does not believe that everlasting greed is the path to everlasting abundance.

By: Ed Ring

Ed Ring — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:37:22 +0000

Roger: You make a good point. In the context of scope insensitivity, the immigration example is a good one. But the issue of U.S. immigration policy is complex. Basically our position would be unless property rights are taken back from the environmental extremists, all population growth in the U.S. is going to be forced into the “footprint” of existing cities. That is already the reality in California, and the trend in the rest of the U.S. In that context, increasing the U.S. population by 50% in the next 20-30 years is, to me, a hideous choice.

If, on the other hand, Americans recognized the inevitability of abundant land, energy and water - because of stablizing population, voluntary urbanization, factory agriculture, drip irrigation, desalination, water reuse, clean fossil fuel, and myriad new energy technologies - then policymakers would hopefully abandon the trend towards rationing of land, energy and water.

If the current agenda of the environmentalist movement prevails, and we live in a nation of rationing - then Americans should be very concerned about population growth via immigration.

The long term trends are both positive and inevitable - abundant resources and a stable population. Our global economic challenge in 50 years or so will be how to enjoy economic growth through automation, since the human population can only be stable if it has a fundamentally elderly demographic.

By: Roger Brown

Roger Brown — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:32:35 +0000

I do not really understand your comment about limiting immigration. You have stated elsewhere that you believe that global birthrates are declining and that the earth’s human population will stabilize at about 8.5 billion people. You also claim to believe that continued technological progress can bring about an era of universal abundance while at the same time limiting the negative impacts of human economic activity on the biosphere to an acceptable level. If these beliefs are true, then what motivation do we have for stabilizing the U.S. population immediately through immigration restrictions? The urgency of immigration restrictions only makes sense if we believe that the earth’s resources are insufficient to support the global human population at U.S. levels of material wealth. If you are claiming that immigration restrictions will cause a significant drop in global birthrate then I think that you are guilty of scope insensitivity yourself.

I agree that allowing large levels of immigration is not an effective way to combat global poverty. However, in spite of the noble words on the statue of Liberty I do not believe that U.S. immigration policy has ever been primarily dictated by humanitarian considerations. In the past , a relatively underpopulated, resource rich continent made large levels of immigration an economic advantage. Now that the situation has changed and we realize that resource availability is limiting wealth we wish to change our policy. I am not arguing in favor of unrestricted immigration. But I am arguing in favor of acknowledging the reality of our situation rather than pretending that we are about to enter an era of universal abundance at the same time that we want to slam shut the gates of immigratioon to make sure that we do not have to share our wealth with too many people.

By: guy

guy — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:08:59 +0000

I am 78 years old and most of the bullshi* that is on this blog written by these liberals will destroy this great nation. Most of them have had it so good they have no idea the problems this great nation has overcome we are out of oil and all I hear is global warming, green cars, ect., if they replace all the cars with batteries plus copper for the electric motors lead and copper will cost thousands per pound. How stupid can Gore and the other liberals be? Let me answer - stupid.