You've done an indignity to an august academic by associating his presentation with "end times" rhetoric.
He is not saying "this is the end." He's saying, "Here's the problem, and here are our choices for dealing with it."
Perhaps you play the "end times" card because you are frightened by Bartlett's message and want to dismiss it?
Posted by: MikeB | Jul 15, 2012 9:27:49 AM
Gah. This kind of Malthusian 'sustainbility' argument is the exact counterpart of the rightist Laffer curve tax argument. Of course it's true of the growth of anything, be it population or GDP or energy use or oil finds, that a) it can't continue forever and that b) the 'impact' increases each year. That doesn't underwrite the conclusion that we should make it "sustainably" stop today, as opposed to yesterday, or thirty years from now or last century or two centuries from now. Yes, yes, yes, it's true that CO2 emissions growing at 4% per annum are going to be huge, but that by itself says nothing useful about whether the world should try to reach 0% growth in the year 1990 or 2010 or 2050. Me, I think napkin based arguments are too weak for policy in general.
Posted by: prasad | Jul 15, 2012 1:41:01 PM
I thought hat Zizek made more sense than Bartlett. Bartlett with his algebra, and Zizek with his concern. Easy choice.
Posted by: Frans | Jul 15, 2012 1:41:44 PM
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking lecture. Simple math does clarify the compounding nature of growth. Grasping the concept and import of "1 minute to 12" is alarming.
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.
Comments
You've done an indignity to an august academic by associating his presentation with "end times" rhetoric.
He is not saying "this is the end." He's saying, "Here's the problem, and here are our choices for dealing with it."
Perhaps you play the "end times" card because you are frightened by Bartlett's message and want to dismiss it?
Posted by: MikeB | Jul 15, 2012 9:27:49 AM
Gah. This kind of Malthusian 'sustainbility' argument is the exact counterpart of the rightist Laffer curve tax argument. Of course it's true of the growth of anything, be it population or GDP or energy use or oil finds, that a) it can't continue forever and that b) the 'impact' increases each year. That doesn't underwrite the conclusion that we should make it "sustainably" stop today, as opposed to yesterday, or thirty years from now or last century or two centuries from now. Yes, yes, yes, it's true that CO2 emissions growing at 4% per annum are going to be huge, but that by itself says nothing useful about whether the world should try to reach 0% growth in the year 1990 or 2010 or 2050. Me, I think napkin based arguments are too weak for policy in general.
Posted by: prasad | Jul 15, 2012 1:41:01 PM
I thought hat Zizek made more sense than Bartlett. Bartlett with his algebra, and Zizek with his concern. Easy choice.
Posted by: Frans | Jul 15, 2012 1:41:44 PM
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking lecture. Simple math does clarify the compounding nature of growth. Grasping the concept and import of "1 minute to 12" is alarming.
Posted by: Twalker | Jul 17, 2012 7:06:01 AM
Post a comment