Posted By: WillInAberdeenSimon, thanks for the link, but unfortunately a common fallacy is stated as fact in the first paragraph. The overwhelming source of economic growth in modern economies comes not from consuming more natural resources. But from using more/better human resources (labour, skills, knowledge, intellect) and capital resources (infrastructure, organisations, social structures).

Yet it is not a common fallacy just because you keep restating it is. Beyond saying it can you back this up with some hard evidence.

Are we really using less resources to support our life styles as you state? I do not think that is the case. We might not be using some resources as much but over all I very much doubt the total global use of resources is down compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Posted By: fostertomIt's not just an optional belief - it's hardwired into the present money system.

But it is an optional belief that has caused "growth" to be hardwired into the financial systems of the world. It's a human constructed system where the belief underpins the construction of the system.

If we look at the drivers of growth over the past say 150 years or so, that growth is mainly driven by energy - i.e. the use of fossils fuel due to their energy density - not as many would suggest labour and capital, which actually only form a small part of the the whole equation.

It seems rather bizarre to me that given how we now need to completely revise our energy dependency, whether that is replacing and or reducing energy sources and use, we seem to think that we can just carry on with the same economic systems without some sort of fundamental review.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenunfortunately a common fallacy is stated as fact in the first paragraph. The overwhelming source of economic growth in modern economies comes not from consuming more natural resources. But from using more/better human resources (labour, skills, knowledge, intellect) and capital resources (infrastructure, organisations, social structures).

We can become a wealthier society by increasing our human resources (eg by research and education) or capital resources (eg fibre broadband or social networks or healthcare services) without needing to deplete more natural resources.

I concede that the statement in the first paragraph may be at one extreme of the spectrum of opinions but a fallacy it isn't. That view comes from the other end of the spectrum where many believers in the dream of decoupling lie

Whilst there are several well developed countries like the US, UK and Germany, that have in recent decades demonstrated relative decoupling, we are nowhere near knowing or understanding how or if we can achieve absolute decoupling. There are several very major problems here. One is that growth is exponential, which means that if we're going to achieve the necessary decoupling the reduction of resource use is also going to have to reduce exponentially, and within current systems, that is very unlikely to happen. Another major problem that hasn't even begun to be tackled yet is that as we decouple, for example through digitisation, then the marginal cost of those products reduces. There are many questions as to how,if this part of our economic system expands to the extent it needs to, this will impact on growth. This impact has already been seen in many areas of tech.

The idea of absolute decoupling may have been adopted by many of the global economic umbrella organisations but I suspect that this adoption comes more from a lack of alternative ideas and a fear of actually tackling the dogma of growth. At the moment I would put decoupling in the same box as large scale carbon capture technology - not an impossibility but work in progress that may or may not yield fruit.

As Kate Raworth says in her book, Doughnut Economics, perhaps we need to turn the approach to growth around. Instead of (I paraphrase) growth whether or not we thrive, we can learn to thrive whether there is economic growth or not.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenThat's not to say there aren't many/obvious examples of overconsumption of natural resources that we must urgently tackle, otherwise we wouldn't be on GBF. But we will be able to tackle them using better human and social resources and still become better off than we were,

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to resolve overconsumption and we need to better use human/social reqources and capital to to this, rather than 'energy.' But unfortunately, it would require a serious turnaround in both economic, political policy because at present there is much more of a move towards automation instead of human resource. This potentially causes problems in the very sphere we need solutions. To reference Kate Raworth and her book again, she interestingly talks about how this could be done by retrofitting instead of building new building for energy conservation. According to her view this would create a lot of jobs, and would require less energy and resource use than trying to build new.

From the perspective of wealth, I agree there needs to be more distribution of wealth around the world, but I also wonder how we best measure wealth and that perhaps with where developed countries are, we need a more comprehensive view on that one. One that isn't largely reliant on money and possession terms.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenUK Gross Value Added 2019, that was derived from natural resources:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing: 7
Mining, quarrying, oil: 11
Water supply: 12

UK Gross Value Added 2019, that was not derived from natural resources:
Distribution, hotels, restaurants: 134
Business and Financial services 338
Government and public services 219
Total services 792

Hmmm.. Interesting taxonomy I do love the fact that distribution, for example, is not derived from natural resource....hotel and restaurants, none there either, as their activity has nothing to do with resources like food, nor the subsequent waste. Is there no manufacturing or natural gas?

Sorry, cheeky

Posted By: SimonDit is an optional belief that has caused "growth" to be hardwired into the financial systems of the world

It's been that way, in Europe, since the 1300s, when Arabic mathematicians advised Kings and Princes on how to reverse the growing independent prosperity of peasants-become-traders incl issuing their own promisory notes. If royalty would outlaw the latter and 'own' all the money, keep it in short supply and as it were rent it out for use (i.e. charge interest on it) then they'd have a tidy regular income, growth and prosperity would revert to sluggish but they'd get more of it (nearly all the 'cream'), and the new 'free' class would struggle. So its roots run deep, and suit the owners of money; the character of capitalism was set. It won't be easily changed.

Spot on, the Confucian understanding - it's why east Asians especially the vast Chinese section of it, do feel disconcertingly 'from another planet', to westerners. But they're right. Fantastic new book https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=web+of+meaning&ref=nb_sb_noss_1 goes deep into what the world needs to 'get'.

Wow - when's your book comning out?!

Yeah man it's like evryfing innit

Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary
Hmm - sounds like the UK housing market

Possibly couldn't be a better example

It's very nascent but any thoughts on mycelium insulation?

Super sustainable
Conductivity of 0.024W/m.K
Can't buy it yet afaik

https://www.biohm.co.uk/mycelium

Historic Scotland have been installing some hemp based insulation in their Edinburgh lodge building. Uploading some pics they kindly sent me in case of interest.