Why Economic Growth Will Fall

The implication is that some sort of population control might be necessary, if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves. Population control is antithetical to western individualistic values, so people reject the premise because one of the potential policy consequences (population control) causes an emotional melt-down. If desire to believe in an abstract principle is strong enough, facts will be rejected.

"if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves."

Since at the moment, the evidence strongly suggests that they are, "population control" measures sound even more evil to me than they did before.

The problem is that when you go to concretize the abstract question, you end up with the question "Who gets the power to decide who lives and dies?" (or reproduces) and one need not study history for very long to become very nervous about the possible answers. Those of you who casually assume you'd be on the "live" side are unjustified in your confidence.

Maybe growth has slowed, not because of an inherent limit of technology, but because we just don't have problems as big as our great-grandparents. The biggest enemy we have left is ourselves. We crave attention more, overeat, and look forward to a retirement where our minds waste away.

There are some exciting advances we need to extend the modern world to all of humanity without destroying the planet. But for those of us already living with the best humanity has to offer, our biggest limitation is ourselves.

I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one? Things like wikipedia are valuable and don't contribute to GDP. But then shouldn't people be happier than 20 years ago?

Growth and progress are dehumanised meaningless terms when divorced from quality of life of all citizens on earth. You can have massive unsustainable growth that only filters to the top percentages and destroys the environment. This is quasi feudalism.

Currently we seem to have an economic system whose sole purpose seems to make a few wealthy. Any technological, social and political progress is a side effect to sustain the primary purpose of wealth for a few, and should any of the side effects come in the way of the primary purpose it will be quashed, which seems a tad uncivilised. These billions are just a social number more than anything else, and do not do anything meaningful, apart from affording power, privilege to sustain an inherently exploitative cycle with serious environmental consequences.

Capitalism by its very nature can only reward the top percentages, the moment demand rises with scarce resources prices rise too, leaving a small exclusive group with disproportionate wealth and power always in control.

The market cannot decide anything without heavy constraints, and will take us quickly to a gridlock. In a non functioning traffic intersection, humans will always act not in enlightened self interest or common interest but short term immediate self interest which is neither good for them, everyone else or their environment, evidenced in the ensuing gridlock that will leave everyone including themselves stranded. Yet we set up a system that rewards this uncivilised base individual behavior to get ahead at all costs nevermind anything else. If low cost drives choices it only means the market will rush to exploitation and plunder without constraining rules. If someone is plundering the environment or using slaves an informed choice can only happen if the consumers know about it, cares about it and by the time this happens irreversible damage to the environment or social structure may already be done. Power could ensure information is not available, propaganda or lack of choice for alternatives. Capitalism cannot deliver an egalitarian enlightened sustainable society and is not designed to, only promise to while the small elite control the cycle.

Currently the elite will always support the system out of self interest nevermind the consequences for everyone else or the environment while others seek a way to break into the club or an alternative way. This is inherently unstable and will lead to periodic purges or paranoia and control of the population. Like the old quote goes there is enough for everyone's need but not for their greed.

> Very-low cost higher education was a thing in mid-20th-century America--it was possible to attend your in-state university for a few thousand bucks in today's dollars.

I went to a state school in mid 2000's and paid around $1700/sem in-state tuition for full-time course load.

Is this still an option?