Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. Population growth is stagnating and will peak in less than 100 years.
Neo-Malthusianism is as bunk as Malthusianism was
Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. Population growth is stagnating and will peak in less than 100 years.
Neo-Malthusianism is as bunk as Malthusianism was
> Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land.
...to produce the same output. Growth requires greater output though.
Just look at the timeline of energy consumption [0]. Either you're wrong and innovation requires more resources, or you're right and there's no direct relation between innovation and overall resource usage.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
The metric you’re looking for is energy intensity of GDP [1]. How much energy does each unit of GDP cost. It’s been going down, and it’s lower in rich countries than less developed ones. (Its material counterpart is material intensity of GDP.)
[1] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-inte...
Thanks, that's an interesting reference.
I'm not sure that's what I was looking for though. That's unit consumption per GDP, so it may look stable or even declining regardless of actual consumption of resources.
In a way, it indicates the potential for a more sustainable living but unless it goes down by greater amounts than GDP growth, it's still net positive environmental damage.