Difference between revisions of "Economy"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Description:== | ==Description:== | ||
==Enablers:== | ==Enablers:== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
==Paradigms:== | ==Paradigms:== | ||
It was an economic growth that revolutionized and changed the process of invention. Since 1850 the pace of invention and innovation has further accelerated: steelmaking, the internal combustion engine, pasteurization, the typewriter, the cash register, the telephone, the automobile. The economic growth marked the beginning of industrial revolution: the era in which it is expected that new technological leaps will routinely revolutionize industries and generate major improvements in living standards. | |||
However, to support the economic growth, more resources had to be used. According to Paul and Anne Ehrlich's equation for human environmental impact, | |||
I = P x A x T, where I = environmental impact, P = population, A = affluence, and T = technology. | |||
This implies that any increases in population, wealth, and technology are inherently damaging to the environment, no matter what mitigating measures are possible. Using real data, we know that the amount of energy used and pollution emitted per dollar of economic activity has been increasing. Professor John Sterman, the self-described "Dr Doom" commented that if everyone on Earth tried to live the literal lifestyle of modern Americans, we would need 5-10 planets worth of resources and carrying capacity. Therefore, if economic growth meant the same material needs and consumptions per capita worldwide, then sustainability and growth are irreconcilable. Professor Sterman shared both data and general statistics showing that people generally have become conditioned to the notion that they always need more, especially more physical, material good and that this is inherently unsustainable. | |||
==Experts:== | ==Experts:== | ||
==Timing:== | ==Timing:== | ||
==Web Resources:== | ==Web Resources:== | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 1 October 2009
Description:
Enablers:
• Increase investment
• Increase in population
• Increase in consumption, which will increase GDP.
• Increase in government expenditure
• Increase in international trade: countries that are open to international trade grow faster than closed economies
• Increase in level of human capital
• Governance and Transparency
Inhibitors:
• Political and social instability
• Trade barriers
• Socialism
Paradigms:
It was an economic growth that revolutionized and changed the process of invention. Since 1850 the pace of invention and innovation has further accelerated: steelmaking, the internal combustion engine, pasteurization, the typewriter, the cash register, the telephone, the automobile. The economic growth marked the beginning of industrial revolution: the era in which it is expected that new technological leaps will routinely revolutionize industries and generate major improvements in living standards.
However, to support the economic growth, more resources had to be used. According to Paul and Anne Ehrlich's equation for human environmental impact,
I = P x A x T, where I = environmental impact, P = population, A = affluence, and T = technology.
This implies that any increases in population, wealth, and technology are inherently damaging to the environment, no matter what mitigating measures are possible. Using real data, we know that the amount of energy used and pollution emitted per dollar of economic activity has been increasing. Professor John Sterman, the self-described "Dr Doom" commented that if everyone on Earth tried to live the literal lifestyle of modern Americans, we would need 5-10 planets worth of resources and carrying capacity. Therefore, if economic growth meant the same material needs and consumptions per capita worldwide, then sustainability and growth are irreconcilable. Professor Sterman shared both data and general statistics showing that people generally have become conditioned to the notion that they always need more, especially more physical, material good and that this is inherently unsustainable.