Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

The role of physical constraints on production

View more insights in Social Sciences - Economics - Macroeconomics

View more figures from Monash University

View the page of Ratbek Dzhumashev

Read the Study

Ratbek Dzhumashev discusses the physical constraints of the production process by connecting the actual amount (volume) of physical output to its mass.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 28, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses a debate surrounding the potential risks of long-term economic growth due to the depletion of non-renewable resources. It references early writings from 1931 that were forgotten and a revisitation in 1972 that sparked renewed interest among economists. Key figures in the debate, like Daly and Hering, critically examined existing frameworks of sustainable growth, particularly criticizing the assumptions made by the Solow model regarding the relationship between resource use and economic output.

The speaker argues that sustainable economic growth is achievable only under certain conditions, which they refer to as "in other conditions." These include acknowledging physical constraints related to resource inputs which must align with the law of conservation of mass. They propose that tangible outputs and the resources needed to produce them are fundamentally linked; thus, as production increases, so must the consumption of material inputs, contrary to the idea of dematerialization.

Through various assumptions about the properties of matter, the speaker lays out a framework suggesting that as economies grow, so will waste and pollution, unless significant efforts in pollution abatement and sustainable practices are implemented. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity for future research to account for the interplay between production, resource use, and environmental impact to foster sustainable economic growth.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:03.085
The context is based on, this debate about,

00:03.425 --> 00:04.885
the possibility of,

00:05.275 --> 00:07.965
long-term economic growth collapsing if,

00:08.595 --> 00:11.885
non-renewable resources will be depleted in the future.

00:12.145 --> 00:16.085
In early, I think in 1931, totally, wrote about this,

00:16.145 --> 00:17.605
but then it was forgotten.

00:18.425 --> 00:22.485
And later in 1972, this question was revisited

00:22.505 --> 00:23.885
by middles and others.

00:24.505 --> 00:26.365
So they wrote a book, and this book

00:26.365 --> 00:27.685
started kind of a debate.

00:28.405 --> 00:32.345
So that, debate then I think attracted the attention of,

00:32.365 --> 00:33.385
some economists

00:33.445 --> 00:37.585
and, does group hill, solo sticklet.

00:38.055 --> 00:41.145
They wrote a few papers, addressing this problem.

00:42.045 --> 00:43.545
And, they kind of showed

00:43.545 --> 00:47.545
that the sustainable economic growth is possible as soon as,

00:47.605 --> 00:50.785
for example, this democratization kind of occurs.

00:51.365 --> 00:53.465
And democratization, basically means

00:53.465 --> 00:56.905
that producing more goods while using less,

00:57.185 --> 01:01.195
material inputs and, to happen.

01:01.555 --> 01:03.555
I mean, for, for it to happen, we need

01:03.555 --> 01:06.475
to have something called in other conditions to hold.

01:07.645 --> 01:10.025
And, that's, that's, important.

01:10.125 --> 01:12.465
Uh, turns out, property of production.

01:12.925 --> 01:16.345
And in, economics, we use production functions that's

01:17.035 --> 01:19.285
sort of, mathematical constructs.

01:19.665 --> 01:21.925
And those functions, they should have this in other

01:21.925 --> 01:24.445
conditions, to, to be hold,

01:25.625 --> 01:26.925
to hold.

01:27.085 --> 01:31.265
I mean, and, so I can go on further. Yeah. Yeah.

01:31.325 --> 01:33.545
So, so the,

01:35.085 --> 01:36.905
and then of course, people start thinking about

01:36.905 --> 01:38.745
that if it is, possible or not.

01:39.245 --> 01:43.185
But later, there was some criticism about this.

01:43.205 --> 01:46.865
Uh, does group, heals all those stickless framework

01:46.865 --> 01:51.345
because, for example, daily in 19, 97,

01:51.845 --> 01:56.025
he wrote an ecological economic, journal that,

01:56.575 --> 02:00.835
this sounds like the evidence doesn't support this,

02:02.185 --> 02:03.355
solo framework assumption.

02:04.535 --> 02:09.155
And, later others, for example, Hering in 2006,

02:09.625 --> 02:14.195
Jackson 2009, they also, emphasize that,

02:14.855 --> 02:19.035
the, I mean the, slowdown

02:19.035 --> 02:22.075
of material intensity in the production is not happening.

02:22.615 --> 02:26.675
Uh, like if you follow this, d the, the,

02:27.345 --> 02:29.595
heel, solo framework,

02:29.795 --> 02:31.795
I think it should be happening, but it's not happening.

02:32.535 --> 02:36.795
And, later also, other authors, highlighted

02:36.795 --> 02:37.955
that, for example,

02:38.555 --> 02:42.075
democratization is possible only if economic growth kind of,

02:42.075 --> 02:43.195
is restricted.

02:44.885 --> 02:46.465
And, so,

02:46.565 --> 02:49.465
but some other people, kind of came up with this sort

02:49.465 --> 02:52.345
of evidence showing that if you look at the GDP data,

02:52.415 --> 02:56.865
then seems like, the share of, saving, I mean,

02:56.865 --> 02:58.025
the service are increasing

02:58.645 --> 03:00.565
and compared to the manufacturing part.

03:01.065 --> 03:04.045
But then, there also some other people like BFAs

03:04.045 --> 03:07.685
and Cal, they, published a few papers where they kind

03:07.685 --> 03:12.085
of show that using the size of GDP is not really, kind

03:12.085 --> 03:13.565
of correct way of showing that,

03:13.665 --> 03:14.845
the naturalization is happening

03:15.115 --> 03:19.325
because the GDP itself is not, directly, kind

03:19.325 --> 03:21.525
of linked to the physical aspects of production.

03:22.595 --> 03:25.735
And so, anyway, the, conclusion is

03:25.735 --> 03:28.295
that seems like dematerialization is not actually taking

03:28.305 --> 03:29.655
place in this world,

03:30.615 --> 03:33.275
and that basically means maybe that in other conditions,

03:33.275 --> 03:37.175
that assumed by, the does Gupta heal

03:37.175 --> 03:39.815
and stick solo framework may not be true.

03:41.315 --> 03:45.215
So, what we, what I did was that, I tried to,

03:45.445 --> 03:47.255
show that this condition doesn't hold,

03:47.315 --> 03:49.735
and what sort of implications we might have,

03:50.115 --> 03:51.495
if the condition doesn't hold.

03:52.395 --> 03:57.295
So, the in other condition itself was formulated by,

03:57.525 --> 04:00.615
Inad in, 1963.

04:01.435 --> 04:05.295
And, the intuition behind this, idea is very simple.

04:05.645 --> 04:07.375
Basically, it means that when,

04:08.825 --> 04:11.605
we reduce inputs into production, then,

04:11.605 --> 04:15.285
so-called marginal product of input tends to infinity.

04:15.945 --> 04:19.965
And if we have infinite inputs, then the marginal product of

04:19.965 --> 04:21.965
that input will be close to zero.

04:23.015 --> 04:25.355
And what is relevant in our case is

04:25.355 --> 04:28.195
that when inputs become small, scars,

04:28.705 --> 04:33.435
then can we still keep producing more, goods?

04:34.035 --> 04:35.395
I mean, that's the basic idea here.

04:36.475 --> 04:39.895
So in order to show that it's not possible, then,

04:39.955 --> 04:43.615
in this paper, you know, we introduced the sort

04:43.615 --> 04:47.495
of physical constraints, into this theory of production.

04:48.035 --> 04:52.835
So, I assume the same, kind

04:52.835 --> 04:56.395
of product function as in, this,

04:57.825 --> 05:00.315
heal, stickler solo framework.

05:00.425 --> 05:03.715
That means, usually in, economics,

05:03.815 --> 05:06.355
we assume production function takes on two inputs,

05:06.355 --> 05:07.435
capital and labor.

05:07.975 --> 05:10.835
But they also introduced a material resources

05:10.855 --> 05:12.195
as additional input.

05:12.495 --> 05:15.915
So I do the same, but in, in addition,

05:15.985 --> 05:20.475
what I do is I kind of introduce, also mass of matter.

05:20.695 --> 05:23.195
So in order to measure the mass.

05:23.695 --> 05:26.115
So yeah, I also introduce, a concept

05:26.215 --> 05:27.435
of, mass function.

05:27.435 --> 05:31.515
That's a function that kind of, if you check in the ma

05:31.515 --> 05:34.875
the matter, it tells you what is the mass of that matter.

05:36.035 --> 05:38.115
I mean, that's kind of the, abstraction.

05:38.115 --> 05:39.875
But, that's how I think.

05:40.585 --> 05:44.725
And also, I assume that,

05:44.785 --> 05:47.245
any tangible matter can be, measured

05:47.865 --> 05:51.165
and, it, it can be measured by its volume,

05:51.895 --> 05:54.545
because the idea is that we live, humans,

05:54.765 --> 05:56.585
we live in this, 3D world,

05:57.385 --> 05:58.385
Uh, dimension.

05:58.505 --> 06:00.445
So anything, we see

06:00.505 --> 06:04.735
or we, kind of, can, feel

06:04.925 --> 06:07.945
that should have volume, anything that usable

06:07.945 --> 06:10.935
for us should be, should have its volume.

06:11.635 --> 06:15.895
So, based on that, then, I make this,

06:15.895 --> 06:18.455
three assumptions first, that,

06:19.275 --> 06:22.175
and it comes from the physics of course, that, first

06:22.175 --> 06:25.655
of all, that, the density

06:25.835 --> 06:27.375
of any matter is positive.

06:27.655 --> 06:29.855
I mean, if you can touch and feel something,

06:30.075 --> 06:31.935
and it should have po positive density.

06:32.135 --> 06:33.295
I mean, if it has mass,

06:33.295 --> 06:35.535
then it should be the positive density.

06:35.675 --> 06:37.735
That's first thing. Second thing is

06:37.735 --> 06:39.615
that densities are constant.

06:39.695 --> 06:42.455
I mean, it doesn't really matter if you have, for example,

06:42.515 --> 06:44.175
10 liters of water or one liter

06:44.175 --> 06:46.215
of water density should be the same.

06:47.155 --> 06:49.895
That's the idea. I mean, also, probably,

06:49.895 --> 06:51.055
reasonable assumption.

06:51.155 --> 06:54.495
And, the other thing, the third assumption is

06:54.495 --> 06:57.935
that densities of the outputs, tangible outputs

06:58.275 --> 07:01.615
and resource used to make, to tho those outputs,

07:01.715 --> 07:03.135
comparable.

07:03.375 --> 07:05.295
I mean, you cannot really make, out

07:05.295 --> 07:07.575
of iron something very light

07:07.635 --> 07:10.015
and not really, doesn't have any mass.

07:10.355 --> 07:12.135
So that's, that's the big basic idea.

07:12.245 --> 07:15.135
They can be different, but they're still in the same order

07:15.235 --> 07:17.735
of kind of, values.

07:18.435 --> 07:20.775
So it cannot be like billion times lighter.

07:21.795 --> 07:22.815
Uh, I mean,

07:22.815 --> 07:24.975
the output cannot be billion times lighter than the,

07:24.995 --> 07:26.335
input used to make it.

07:26.515 --> 07:27.615
So that's the basic idea.

07:28.565 --> 07:33.535
So, given this then, so, given this, then,

07:33.555 --> 07:38.395
I try to use also the law of conservation

07:38.395 --> 07:41.755
of mass, because that's the kind of physical,

07:41.755 --> 07:42.835
constraint comes from there.

07:43.415 --> 07:46.275
So the idea is very simple. So the idea is this.

07:46.775 --> 07:48.595
So if we have some resources

07:49.725 --> 07:52.865
and we use those resources to make some tangible outputs,

07:53.135 --> 07:56.345
that the mass of those initial resources should be contained

07:57.005 --> 07:58.665
partly in output

07:58.725 --> 08:01.345
and partly in the waste, that we kind

08:01.345 --> 08:04.345
of generate while producing that, tangible output.

08:05.525 --> 08:10.265
So then that means, the mass of any output, I mean,

08:10.425 --> 08:13.185
tangible output will be proportional to the massive,

08:13.525 --> 08:15.265
resources used.

08:15.865 --> 08:17.985
I mean, that's also kind of quite simple idea,

08:18.005 --> 08:21.705
but, we never used it in economics,

08:21.705 --> 08:24.185
even though it's just like a kind of a straightforward,

08:24.545 --> 08:25.945
probably logic in, physics.

08:26.685 --> 08:30.965
So then, using this, kind of relationship

08:30.965 --> 08:32.445
between massive output

08:32.445 --> 08:36.365
and massive resources, then, I, I am able to show

08:36.365 --> 08:38.965
that the marginal resource product is bounded.

08:39.345 --> 08:43.125
And it's because it turns out the, the marginal product

08:43.145 --> 08:47.545
of, output will be somehow related to the ratio

08:47.545 --> 08:50.385
of this densities of output and resources.

08:50.385 --> 08:51.905
And remember that the assumption was

08:51.905 --> 08:53.825
that they cannot be too different.

08:54.095 --> 08:56.005
Yeah. So they cannot be, like, their,

08:56.135 --> 08:57.965
ratio cannot be, infinity.

08:58.385 --> 09:00.125
So that means it's bounded.

09:00.345 --> 09:03.125
So that means there is some, upper bound, value,

09:03.705 --> 09:06.205
and that kind of shows, I mean, mathematically, we can show

09:06.235 --> 09:07.525
that,

09:08.665 --> 09:11.325
we cannot really produce more tangible output

09:12.155 --> 09:14.225
using very little, resource.

09:14.225 --> 09:15.585
Basic, basic idea is that.

09:16.475 --> 09:20.695
So then, we, we also use this, finding

09:20.795 --> 09:23.615
and show that, whenever we,

09:23.805 --> 09:27.135
produce more tangible output, that also implies that we have

09:27.135 --> 09:29.415
to use more, material inputs.

09:29.755 --> 09:31.855
So, because they're kind of related to each other,

09:33.525 --> 09:38.145
so turns out we can have some long run implications from

09:38.145 --> 09:39.745
this sort of, conclusions.

09:40.625 --> 09:44.045
But to do, to make those, conclusions, we, I mean,

09:44.045 --> 09:48.765
need to make some, additional sort of, assumptions.

09:48.765 --> 09:50.925
And first one is the physical size bound.

09:51.505 --> 09:53.925
So what, what it, what does it mean?

09:53.925 --> 09:56.165
It means that, any tangible good

09:56.165 --> 09:58.365
that we consume should have some,

09:58.415 --> 09:59.805
meaningful physical size.

09:59.995 --> 10:03.605
Because for humans, we have some physical, sizes, right?

10:03.665 --> 10:06.725
So, we should have certain, houses

10:06.745 --> 10:08.205
of certain size clothes,

10:08.205 --> 10:10.085
or certain size cars of certain size, right?

10:10.715 --> 10:13.165
They cannot be like, mini was too small,

10:14.075 --> 10:15.525
then it's not meaningful for us.

10:16.425 --> 10:21.125
So given this, we can always, show that,

10:21.585 --> 10:25.165
if any good that we, consume, I mean any tangible good

10:25.345 --> 10:29.525
as it's minimum size, then everything

10:29.525 --> 10:32.325
that we produce in terms of tangible goods should be at

10:32.325 --> 10:35.055
least greater than that, minimum size.

10:35.445 --> 10:38.015
Okay? So that's one, assumption here.

10:38.625 --> 10:41.205
So in other words, it, it should also, if it happens

10:41.305 --> 10:43.165
for each, good, then it should happen

10:43.165 --> 10:44.245
for all goods together.

10:44.505 --> 10:48.175
So in aggregate, the physical size of,

10:48.495 --> 10:52.295
tangible goods cannot be smaller than, certain,

10:52.295 --> 10:53.455
kind of, minimum.

10:54.595 --> 10:57.615
The second, assumption is, complementarity

10:57.615 --> 11:00.775
because, we are talking about tangible goods only.

11:01.395 --> 11:02.935
Uh, but it's the same time we know

11:02.935 --> 11:05.575
that the GDP includes more than just tangible goods.

11:05.635 --> 11:06.815
We have a lot of services.

11:07.595 --> 11:10.695
So the here assumption is that, still

11:11.565 --> 11:13.505
we cannot just consume only services.

11:14.205 --> 11:18.105
So if we, let's say that there are two number of goods,

11:18.105 --> 11:19.465
there are tangible and number

11:19.465 --> 11:20.545
of goods that they're intangible.

11:21.045 --> 11:24.185
So then the ratio of this, numbers cannot be

11:24.735 --> 11:26.105
less than certain value.

11:26.705 --> 11:28.785
'cause even if we increase the number

11:28.785 --> 11:31.505
of different service we consume, we still need

11:31.505 --> 11:34.665
to consume some number of tangible goods, basically, is

11:34.665 --> 11:38.025
that, so in other words, we cannot just consume,

11:38.025 --> 11:40.985
non-tangible goods, and we'll, can go on with that.

11:42.405 --> 11:46.385
And, so given this cells, we can always show,

11:46.385 --> 11:49.505
because of this complementarity between tangible,

11:49.505 --> 11:50.505
non-tangible goods.

11:50.935 --> 11:53.645
That means whenever we produce more tangible goods,

11:53.985 --> 11:57.605
or let's say whenever we produce more non-tangible goods,

11:57.915 --> 12:00.965
then we should also produce more tangible goods.

12:00.965 --> 12:03.925
Because at least, there is, some sort of,

12:04.175 --> 12:06.805
lower bond in terms of, in terms of complementarity.

12:07.765 --> 12:11.465
And, so basically it means if GDP, so,

12:11.465 --> 12:14.225
so-called G-D-P-G-D-P measures the total output,

12:14.275 --> 12:16.945
which includes also tangible and intangible goods.

12:17.295 --> 12:21.905
Then, increase in GDP implies not only increasing,

12:21.905 --> 12:24.545
non-tangible part, but also tangible part.

12:24.885 --> 12:28.705
So anyway, in the long run, if we keep growing in terms

12:28.705 --> 12:31.745
of GDP, that means we should also keep increasing

12:31.745 --> 12:33.185
non-tangible good production.

12:33.565 --> 12:34.825
And also it applies

12:34.825 --> 12:36.465
because of this relationship between

12:37.305 --> 12:38.665
tangible goods and resources.

12:39.125 --> 12:41.705
It also implies that we should also keep using more

12:41.945 --> 12:43.265
resources, material resources

12:43.525 --> 12:45.025
to produce more tangible goods.

12:45.915 --> 12:49.655
So that's, that's, first kind of, conclusion I get.

12:50.075 --> 12:53.495
But this, the next conclusion is that,

12:54.075 --> 12:57.695
it comes from that, part, that waste part of that,

12:57.885 --> 12:59.335
generated in production.

12:59.795 --> 13:03.415
So, because we cannot really,

13:03.875 --> 13:07.215
use all resources available without any waste, so they will,

13:07.215 --> 13:10.295
will waste in terms, in, the process of production.

13:10.955 --> 13:14.015
So, but here we are assuming that,

13:14.515 --> 13:17.135
all waste doesn't, I mean, waste is not, I mean,

13:17.275 --> 13:19.175
all waste doesn't mean it's pollution.

13:19.255 --> 13:23.135
I mean, only part of waste, generated can be,

13:23.875 --> 13:25.375
or can contribute to pollution.

13:26.185 --> 13:30.285
And, because a part of waste might be, cleaned up,

13:30.375 --> 13:32.045
might be abated,

13:32.155 --> 13:33.845
because we, I mean,

13:33.935 --> 13:37.365
especially now probably we are trying to, kind

13:37.365 --> 13:39.845
of adopt clean, so technology so called.

13:40.745 --> 13:42.845
But anyway, the idea here is that,

13:43.435 --> 13:47.445
it's not really possible, at least, I don't see how

13:47.785 --> 13:50.485
how it can be done, that

13:51.465 --> 13:54.645
all waste will be cleaned up, so there will be some,

13:54.645 --> 13:57.285
part of waste that will contribute to pollution, right?

13:57.745 --> 14:00.965
So that's the first kind of step of, our, my logic.

14:01.465 --> 14:03.525
So then what happens is this.

14:03.625 --> 14:07.885
So if we keep growing, keep producing, more output,

14:08.515 --> 14:12.045
that means we keep, in, using, more

14:12.145 --> 14:14.605
and more material resources than part

14:14.605 --> 14:16.085
of resource, waste that we know.

14:16.185 --> 14:19.005
So the, the waste will also increasing, and

14:19.005 --> 14:21.485
because we generate more waste,

14:21.585 --> 14:24.085
and part of that waste will also contribute to pollution.

14:24.385 --> 14:26.685
So at the end, pollution also should increase

14:27.025 --> 14:31.725
unless, we kind of, very serious about, I think,

14:31.745 --> 14:34.725
the promoting these green technologies and

14:34.745 --> 14:38.765
or somehow implementing better, abatement of the,

14:38.795 --> 14:41.815
pollution that we generate in the process

14:41.915 --> 14:42.935
of, manufacturing.

14:43.195 --> 14:45.475
And, so,

14:45.975 --> 14:49.035
but again, that's the, different question in this case.

14:49.845 --> 14:54.365
Anyway, so I can summarize this paper by,

14:54.485 --> 14:57.775
I think saying this, I think,

14:57.775 --> 15:02.485
making the statements first, in, this by,

15:02.685 --> 15:05.365
I think incorporating this physical constraints into the,

15:05.365 --> 15:09.485
production process, I, I was able to formalize that.

15:09.485 --> 15:12.925
Uh, there's actually a constraint on,

15:14.145 --> 15:15.205
the production process

15:15.465 --> 15:17.205
and which implies that there is,

15:17.795 --> 15:20.285
so-called inad documentation doesn't really hold.

15:20.915 --> 15:23.885
That means we cannot really produce more output

15:24.975 --> 15:28.035
by using very small input material input.

15:28.495 --> 15:31.675
So if we want to produce more material output, that is,

15:31.675 --> 15:35.835
we have to, also use more, resource inputs.

15:36.455 --> 15:40.035
And the implication of this is that, if we keep,

15:40.315 --> 15:44.235
I mean growing, then that means we have to always,

15:44.235 --> 15:47.475
most likely, also generate pollution

15:48.795 --> 15:50.215
or some sort of, waste,

15:50.355 --> 15:52.575
and that might be damaging to the environment.

15:53.275 --> 15:56.155
And so the idea here is

15:56.155 --> 15:58.875
that future research should focus on, this sort

15:58.875 --> 16:00.755
of optimal growth path that,

16:00.755 --> 16:03.675
takes into account not only, production side,

16:03.675 --> 16:06.715
but also that products always takes, takes,

16:07.075 --> 16:09.235
resources, material sources as inputs,

16:09.695 --> 16:12.355
and there's always byproduct as pollution.

16:13.135 --> 16:16.355
So, so, by I think getting this, better,

16:16.635 --> 16:19.555
I guess, insights into this sort of, complicated,

16:20.095 --> 16:23.555
process, then maybe we can, I guess,

16:24.195 --> 16:26.435
I don't know, maybe understand better how

16:26.435 --> 16:28.035
to build sustainable growth in the future.

00:00 - The context is based on, this debate about, the possibility of, long-term economic growth collapsing if, non-renewable resources will be depleted in the future. In early, I think in 1931, totally, wrote about this, but then it was forgotten.

00:18 - And later in 1972, this question was revisited by middles and others. So they wrote a book, and this book started kind of a debate. So that, debate then I think attracted the attention of, some economists and, does group hill, solo sticklet. They wrote a few papers, addressing this problem. And, they kind of showed that the sustainable economic growth is possible as soon as,

00:47 - for example, this democratization kind of occurs. And democratization, basically means that producing more goods while using less, material inputs and, to happen. I mean, for, for it to happen, we need to have something called in other conditions to hold. And, that's, that's, important. turns out, property of production. And in, economics, we use production functions that's sort of, mathematical constructs.

01:19 - And those functions, they should have this in other conditions, to, to be hold, to hold. I mean, and, so I can go on further. Yeah. Yeah. So, so the, and then of course, people start thinking about that if it is, possible or not. But later, there was some criticism about this. does group, heals all those stickless framework because, for example, daily in 19, 97,

01:51 - he wrote an ecological economic, journal that, this sounds like the evidence doesn't support this, solo framework assumption. And, later others, for example, Hering in 2006, Jackson 2009, they also, emphasize that, the, I mean the, slowdown of material intensity in the production is not happening. like if you follow this, d the, the, heel, solo framework, I think it should be happening, but it's not happening.

02:32 - And, later also, other authors, highlighted that, for example, democratization is possible only if economic growth kind of, is restricted. And, so, but some other people, kind of came up with this sort of evidence showing that if you look at the GDP data, then seems like, the share of, saving, I mean, the service are increasing and compared to the manufacturing part.

03:01 - But then, there also some other people like BFAs and Cal, they, published a few papers where they kind of show that using the size of GDP is not really, kind of correct way of showing that, the naturalization is happening because the GDP itself is not, directly, kind of linked to the physical aspects of production. And so, anyway, the, conclusion is that seems like dematerialization is not actually taking place in this world,

03:30 - and that basically means maybe that in other conditions, that assumed by, the does Gupta heal and stick solo framework may not be true. So, what we, what I did was that, I tried to, show that this condition doesn't hold, and what sort of implications we might have, if the condition doesn't hold. So, the in other condition itself was formulated by, Inad in, 1963. And, the intuition behind this, idea is very simple.

04:05 - Basically, it means that when, we reduce inputs into production, then, so-called marginal product of input tends to infinity. And if we have infinite inputs, then the marginal product of that input will be close to zero. And what is relevant in our case is that when inputs become small, scars, then can we still keep producing more, goods? I mean, that's the basic idea here. So in order to show that it's not possible, then,

04:39 - in this paper, you know, we introduced the sort of physical constraints, into this theory of production. So, I assume the same, kind of product function as in, this, heal, stickler solo framework. That means, usually in, economics, we assume production function takes on two inputs, capital and labor. But they also introduced a material resources as additional input.

05:12 - So I do the same, but in, in addition, what I do is I kind of introduce, also mass of matter. So in order to measure the mass. So yeah, I also introduce, a concept of, mass function. That's a function that kind of, if you check in the ma the matter, it tells you what is the mass of that matter. I mean, that's kind of the, abstraction. But, that's how I think. And also, I assume that,

05:44 - any tangible matter can be, measured and, it, it can be measured by its volume, because the idea is that we live, humans, we live in this, 3D world, dimension. So anything, we see or we, kind of, can, feel that should have volume, anything that usable for us should be, should have its volume. So, based on that, then, I make this,

06:15 - three assumptions first, that, and it comes from the physics of course, that, first of all, that, the density of any matter is positive. I mean, if you can touch and feel something, and it should have po positive density. I mean, if it has mass, then it should be the positive density. That's first thing. Second thing is that densities are constant.

06:39 - I mean, it doesn't really matter if you have, for example, 10 liters of water or one liter of water density should be the same. That's the idea. I mean, also, probably, reasonable assumption. And, the other thing, the third assumption is that densities of the outputs, tangible outputs and resource used to make, to tho those outputs, comparable. I mean, you cannot really make, out

07:05 - of iron something very light and not really, doesn't have any mass. So that's, that's the big basic idea. They can be different, but they're still in the same order of kind of, values. So it cannot be like billion times lighter. I mean, the output cannot be billion times lighter than the, input used to make it. So that's the basic idea.

07:28 - So, given this then, so, given this, then, I try to use also the law of conservation of mass, because that's the kind of physical, constraint comes from there. So the idea is very simple. So the idea is this. So if we have some resources and we use those resources to make some tangible outputs, that the mass of those initial resources should be contained partly in output and partly in the waste, that we kind

08:01 - of generate while producing that, tangible output. So then that means, the mass of any output, I mean, tangible output will be proportional to the massive, resources used. I mean, that's also kind of quite simple idea, but, we never used it in economics, even though it's just like a kind of a straightforward, probably logic in, physics. So then, using this, kind of relationship between massive output

08:32 - and massive resources, then, I, I am able to show that the marginal resource product is bounded. And it's because it turns out the, the marginal product of, output will be somehow related to the ratio of this densities of output and resources. And remember that the assumption was that they cannot be too different. Yeah. So they cannot be, like, their, ratio cannot be, infinity. So that means it's bounded.

09:00 - So that means there is some, upper bound, value, and that kind of shows, I mean, mathematically, we can show that, we cannot really produce more tangible output using very little, resource. Basic, basic idea is that. So then, we, we also use this, finding and show that, whenever we, produce more tangible output, that also implies that we have to use more, material inputs.

09:29 - So, because they're kind of related to each other, so turns out we can have some long run implications from this sort of, conclusions. But to do, to make those, conclusions, we, I mean, need to make some, additional sort of, assumptions. And first one is the physical size bound. So what, what it, what does it mean? It means that, any tangible good that we consume should have some, meaningful physical size.

09:59 - Because for humans, we have some physical, sizes, right? So, we should have certain, houses of certain size clothes, or certain size cars of certain size, right? They cannot be like, mini was too small, then it's not meaningful for us. So given this, we can always, show that, if any good that we, consume, I mean any tangible good as it's minimum size, then everything that we produce in terms of tangible goods should be at

10:32 - least greater than that, minimum size. Okay? So that's one, assumption here. So in other words, it, it should also, if it happens for each, good, then it should happen for all goods together. So in aggregate, the physical size of, tangible goods cannot be smaller than, certain, kind of, minimum. The second, assumption is, complementarity because, we are talking about tangible goods only.

11:01 - but it's the same time we know that the GDP includes more than just tangible goods. We have a lot of services. So the here assumption is that, still we cannot just consume only services. So if we, let's say that there are two number of goods, there are tangible and number of goods that they're intangible. So then the ratio of this, numbers cannot be less than certain value.

11:26 - 'cause even if we increase the number of different service we consume, we still need to consume some number of tangible goods, basically, is that, so in other words, we cannot just consume, non-tangible goods, and we'll, can go on with that. And, so given this cells, we can always show, because of this complementarity between tangible, non-tangible goods. That means whenever we produce more tangible goods, or let's say whenever we produce more non-tangible goods,

11:57 - then we should also produce more tangible goods. Because at least, there is, some sort of, lower bond in terms of, in terms of complementarity. And, so basically it means if GDP, so, so-called G-D-P-G-D-P measures the total output, which includes also tangible and intangible goods. Then, increase in GDP implies not only increasing, non-tangible part, but also tangible part. So anyway, in the long run, if we keep growing in terms of GDP, that means we should also keep increasing

12:31 - non-tangible good production. And also it applies because of this relationship between tangible goods and resources. It also implies that we should also keep using more resources, material resources to produce more tangible goods. So that's, that's, first kind of, conclusion I get. But this, the next conclusion is that, it comes from that, part, that waste part of that,

12:57 - generated in production. So, because we cannot really, use all resources available without any waste, so they will, will waste in terms, in, the process of production. So, but here we are assuming that, all waste doesn't, I mean, waste is not, I mean, all waste doesn't mean it's pollution. I mean, only part of waste, generated can be, or can contribute to pollution. And, because a part of waste might be, cleaned up,

13:30 - might be abated, because we, I mean, especially now probably we are trying to, kind of adopt clean, so technology so called. But anyway, the idea here is that, it's not really possible, at least, I don't see how how it can be done, that all waste will be cleaned up, so there will be some, part of waste that will contribute to pollution, right? So that's the first kind of step of, our, my logic.

14:01 - So then what happens is this. So if we keep growing, keep producing, more output, that means we keep, in, using, more and more material resources than part of resource, waste that we know. So the, the waste will also increasing, and because we generate more waste, and part of that waste will also contribute to pollution. So at the end, pollution also should increase unless, we kind of, very serious about, I think,

14:31 - the promoting these green technologies and or somehow implementing better, abatement of the, pollution that we generate in the process of, manufacturing. And, so, but again, that's the, different question in this case. Anyway, so I can summarize this paper by, I think saying this, I think, making the statements first, in, this by, I think incorporating this physical constraints into the,

15:05 - production process, I, I was able to formalize that. there's actually a constraint on, the production process and which implies that there is, so-called inad documentation doesn't really hold. That means we cannot really produce more output by using very small input material input. So if we want to produce more material output, that is, we have to, also use more, resource inputs. And the implication of this is that, if we keep,

15:40 - I mean growing, then that means we have to always, most likely, also generate pollution or some sort of, waste, and that might be damaging to the environment. And so the idea here is that future research should focus on, this sort of optimal growth path that, takes into account not only, production side, but also that products always takes, takes, resources, material sources as inputs,

16:09 - and there's always byproduct as pollution. So, so, by I think getting this, better, I guess, insights into this sort of, complicated, process, then maybe we can, I guess, I don't know, maybe understand better how to build sustainable growth in the future.

Faculti AI can make mistakes