Comments on: Three Limits to Growth

By: The Point of Diminishing Returns - Legal Reader

The Point of Diminishing Returns - Legal Reader — Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:33:29 +0000

[…] explained the law of diminishing returns in his (sadly, now retired) blog The Archdruid Report. First, the more you have of something, the fewer benefits you derive from having even more of it. That’s why, when you’re hungry, getting a sandwich is really meaningful. The second […]

By: Herman Daly | Future Yada Yada Yada

Herman Daly | Future Yada Yada Yada — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:45:39 +0000

[…] Herman Daly has a graph explaining his concept of “uneconomic growth”. […]

By: Limits to growth and technological superstitions - mjbrown.com

Limits to growth and technological superstitions - mjbrown.com — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:07:49 +0000

[…] [1] & Figure: https://steadystate.org/three-limits-to-growth/ […]

By: Peak Oil India | Peak Oil India | Exploring the coming energy crisis and the way forward

Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:35:38 +0000

[…] Three Limits To Growth By Herman Daly, Steadystate.org As production (real GDP) grows, its marginal utility declines, because we satisfy our most important needs first. Likewise, the marginal disutilitiy inflicted by growth increases, because as the economy expands into the ecosphere we sacrifice our least important ecological services first (to the extent we know them). A look at these rising costs and declining benefits of growth. […]

By: Dave Zeiger

Dave Zeiger — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:07:47 +0000

Excellent presentation… thank you.

I suggest referring to ‘DISeconomic’- rather than ‘UNeconomic’ growth, to emphasize its worse-than-neutral effects.

By: john howe

john howe — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 19:53:35 +0000

The indisputable “elephant in the room” is U.S. gasoline consumption.
At 9 mbd and 10.6 barrels/year/capita, this profligate, unique ( to the rest of the industrialized world) dissipation of finite oil slots right in 3’rd behind U.S. total oil at 19 mbd ( 22 barrels/year/capita) and China total oil of 10 mbd( 2 barrels/year/capita).
Regardless of everything else..population growth, water, food, climate change , etc. , this way of American life CANNOT continue for more than about 7 years without 50% foreign oil import, or 14 years with 50% foreign oil from a the rest of the world already fighting and collapsing over the remaining dregs at 3 barrels/year/capita.
FOCUS on U.S. gasoline! We’re running out and the entire American economy and way of life is about to end. “The Long Emergency” won’t be very long.
New thesis and 5’th ed. book “Is there a way forward?”. coming….if there’s still time. Don’t get too far from your garden and woodpile.

By: Tegan Tallullah

Tegan Tallullah — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 15:36:25 +0000

Excellent article – so succinct and makes so much sense, while also being a major insight.

In response to the comment before me (Sukey Jacobson) – the author only mentioned runaway climate change. The term “global warming” has largely been abandoned because scientists now think the climate will be warming in some places and cooling in others. That’s why we just use the term “climate change” now.

By: Three Limits to Growth | Criminology and Econom...

Three Limits to Growth | Criminology and Econom... — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:22:51 +0000

[…] "From the graph it is evident that increasing production and consumption is rightly called economic growth only up to the economic limit. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer, not richer. Unfortunately it seems that we perversely continue to call it economic growth!" […]

By: Sukey Jacobsen

Sukey Jacobsen — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:01:39 +0000

Excellent article. I would only take issue with the assumption of global warming. We may in fact have catastrophic global cooling if the solar sun spot cycle people are correct . There is now significant debate among many scientists about this subject and the claims to massaged data etc. i am no climate scientist, but I think the global cooling school raises significant issues with thw highky politicized global warming camp. We are also surely to have catastrophic environmental issues with the depletion of many natural resources, for instance top soil, at a rate that exceeds replenishment. The question we must all ask ourselves, is what am I personally doing to change and respond to the errors implicit in over consumption and constant growth? What is my personal environmental foot print accounting for all in puts and out puts. ( i am sure mist on this site have read Heinberg’s excellent book, “Enough is Enough”). I am working in earnest towards being a better steward of this planet and of humanity. It is not enough to be a mere intellectual dillitante in these matters. We all must respond too. I do thank the CASSE writers for bring so much of this to my attention.

By: Aquifer

Aquifer — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:28:42 +0000

“uneconomic growth” -a term that must be inserted not only in our lexicon, but in our daily conversation, much and as often as possible until it penetrates mainstream thinking ….