u/Gold-Loan3142

Does this suggest a problem with the economic path we're on?

>"Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life... we need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing pace". – American retail analyst Victor Lebow, 1955

Most of us don’t own great wealth and have to work for a living. So we are driven to prioritise economic survival over the longer term future, and engage in the race to generate new ‘wants’.

Politicians use mainstream economics thinking to justify perpetual growth, arguing that 'trickle down' from the rich is the only way to help the poor. But repeated studies show that it doesn't work...

>at least 1.7 billion workers now live in countries where inflation is outpacing wages, and over 820 million people —roughly one in ten people on Earth— are going hungry.

>The World Bank says we are likely seeing the biggest increase in global inequality and poverty since WW2.

>Three-quarters of the world’s governments are planning austerity-driven public sector spending cuts. 

>https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years

Think on those figures. We've had over 200 years of 'growth' since the start of the industrial revolution around about 1800. We now have "820 million people going hungry" - that's approximately the entire population of the World in 1800.

To benefit from technology and maintain a habitable planet, we need a different economics. [My attempts on that front, at top of profile page.]

Driving this is the economics of perpetual growth. The UN Secretary General António Guterres has warned that the global economy must be transformed to stop it rewarding pollution and waste, and challenge economic growth that is heating the planet.

After a long hot day on a Friends of the Earth stall, talking to the public about climate change and the role of the economy, I came home to the reality that almost every politician I hear proposes more growth as the only way to provide jobs and social security. They even say it's how we can afford to tackle climate change - a bit like financing the fire brigade by selling gasoline to arsonists.

While there are books that criticize mainstream economics, there seem to be few attempts to provide an alternative economics textbook with a finite planet as the basis of the analysis. If that's of interest (in English or Spanish), see top of profile.

https://preview.redd.it/a1o6y5lmjc4h1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c5b76da1942b299dc036184e9d4b4c37317d02e

The message from almost all politicians is: "More economic growth will solve our social problems (poverty, joblessness, inequality) and fix the deepening environmental crisis". This despite the fact that 250 years of growth in the industrialised countries has not yet achieved the former and is the prime cause of the latter.

Even more remarkably, the latest source of growth is to come from 'embracing AI and robotics' - i.e. by promoting the very technologies that threaten to eliminate swathes of jobs if not human labour altogether, and that require vast quantities of energy to power the data centres they rely on.

Point this out and we get two replies:

1. The AI and robotics will create new jobs to replace the old.

2. When we've got the AI we can ask it how to solve climate change for us.

Regarding (1), while some new jobs are likely to be created they are unlikely to be enough, and will almost certainly deepen the climate crisis by increasing material consumption, with most of the extra consumption being by the already well-off (given the levels of inequality).

Regarding (2), save your money - we can ask already, and the answer is rather obvious. Here's what one AI model said:

>"Most AI compute today is used for things like generating images, writing marketing copy, and powering chatbots — not climate solutions."

>"AI built on coal-heavy grids and deployed for entertainment or advertising is straightforwardly bad for the climate. AI genuinely deployed for grid optimisation or materials discovery, powered by clean energy, could offer a net benefit. The current trajectory leans more toward the former than the latter"

>"The burden of proof sits with those making the positive claim — and so far, the evidence for net climate benefit is more aspiration than demonstrated reality."

Macroeconomics needs to change to put the effects of automation on jobs and the limits of our finite planet at the centre of any analysis (more on that on profile). Expecting AI to come up with some magic solution that provides employment or makes climate change vanish, neglects reality. A company does not buy a robot so that it can give its workers longer holidays on the same pay. Businesses are driven to invest in AI to make money and save labour, just as in earlier applications of new technology.

https://preview.redd.it/st3t1ll2t34h1.png?width=1205&format=png&auto=webp&s=73922387fb55efcc0de9c153de005854ec0b79fc

Meanwhile ...

> the UN has voted 141-8 to adopt a resolution backing a World Court opinion that countries have a legal obligation to address climate change, with the US – which is the world’s biggest historical emitter – among the small group opposing it.

>The US joined Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Iran, Yemen, Liberia and Belarus in opposing the resolution on Wednesday. Cop31 climate summit host Turkey, India, and oil producers Qatar and Nigeria were among those abstaining.

From: "UN backs historic climate crisis ruling, despite US attempts to stop resolution" - The Guardian

How on earth can these governments oppose or abstain given the disaster staring their own citizens as well all of us in the face? I fear economics is partly behind it (see profile), but also our short lifespans that make unprecedented levels of consumption appear normal. A mere 2 or 3 generations ago only aristocracy had multiple horses pulling them around in their carriages - now it's routine for the worlds middle classes to have cars with hundreds of horsepower (up to six hundred horsepower for a large SUV). We desperately need to learn to live yes comfortably but above all sustainably.