Darwin123 said:
As a retired physicist, I am really interested in "growth as a law of nature." Please provide references.
I highly suggest you investigate the work of Geoffrey West. Dr. West used to head the Los Alamos High energy lab and has since turned his interests towards complex systems, namely, growth of biological systems.
Here is a nice introduction to his work:
http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html
We can take a few things from his talk:
First, all biological systems tend towards growth.
Second, some biological systems tend towards exponential and therefore unsustainable growth, leading to collapse. All businesses and empires have followed this route.
Third, some biological systems tend towards stable growth and do not collapse. This is the route followed by cities.
I think you will greatly enjoy this lecture, and I highly suggest you read up on some of his published works. It is awesome to see a physicist come in and 'clear the decks' in social sciences.
first we would have to answer :
Can mankind continue?
and then define what we mean by capitalism, socialism, communism, etc
Definitions are a good starting point. I see there is some confusion in this thread about exactly what capitalism, socialism, and growth might mean.
Let me suggest you read chapter 15 of Joseph Schumpeter's book, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy." PF may have a general disdain of social scientists but Schumpeter is probably the best general social theorist that ever lived (important contributions in both economics and sociology that are not just foundational, but still relevant).
We can conceive of two general categories of the social organization of production, one commercial and one socialist. Commercial society is characterized by the use of markets to coordinate the efforts of buyers and sellers to reach spontaneous organization of the supply and demand of goods. A subset of possible commercial societies is capitalist, which specifically means the introduction of banks as lenders of credit and a monetary system regulated by interest, itself regulated through supplies of government bonds.
Socialism, on the other hand, has production and distribution controlled by a central authority. Here private property figures less prominently and 'markets' are not the primary means of coordinating suppliers with buyers and vice versa, but a central authority is. Banks might figure in a socialist mode of production but they are not necessary, since the authority doing the lending and the authority doing the borrowing are one and the same.
even notion of growth is ill defined.
If population grows, then there is a need for more goods.
We can't equivocate population growth with growth in total consumer demand, nor do either of these equate to 'GDP' or what one might call 'total economic activity'
Growing populations require more goods but they also produce more goods. Externalizing our energy demands on fossil fuels in technology means that additional populations can always produce more goods than are required to sustain themselves, so long as the fuel lasts.
Economic growth can mean a few different things. We normally think of it as increases in GDP, but increases in GDP don't necessarily mean we are consuming much more resources - the development of financial instruments have drastically increased total GDP but don't actually use much hard material.
We can also talk about growths in the value of goods and services provided, with an emphasis on services. Growth in 'value' - meaning the subjective benefits of utilizing some service or thing - can continue almost indefinitely, but the easiest types of value to grow this way are the hardest to monetize. Google and Facebook have provided supremely vast amounts of value but this is difficult to monetize directly.
The easiest value to monetize is the classical consumer goods or industrial goods. Inventing a new helicopter or toilet or what have you provides value to the user, but the user can't get it without directly paying. Value that is easily monetized is usually resource expensive with the exception of consultation services.
Socialism - in theory at least - is more likely to preserve egalitarian society - and so may handle
the reduction in standard of living in a more peaceful manner.
But capitalistic (and democratic) society can also redistribute and tax wealth (of those who own
resources) to feed those who just gave their hands (and brains) ...
Socialism is by far the least likely to preserve egalitarian society in a situation of declining resources for the reason that production and supply of all goods are coordinated by a central authority. Members of this central authority have the power to collect for themselves all the best toys and supplies, and they do exactly this, even in times of abundance.
Capitalism has the advantage that the system as a whole is not directly in the control of anyone person. This is also the biggest disadvantage, because we essentially have to wait until the system blows itself out before we have much hope of changing it.
I think its essential to realize that capitalist commercial society is far and above the optimal means of organizing the supply of resources to maximize total growth every year. The reasons for this can go on and on, and if your curious we can go there. But the real point is, it is a system of structured incentives that always reward the highest return on investment (i.e. growth of a fixed capital quantity), and therefore nearly impossible to reign in before it over extends itself.
If you watch the talk by Dr. West you might keep this in mind when he explains how every business in history has failed.