5 ms·

Given that any resouce you can think of is bounded, no, it is impossible.

by hebdo 11y ago

netcan 11y ago
Bounded theoretically, yes. But the boundary can be so far away that it doesn't matter. Take energy. Oil & coal are certainly bounded, either by available deposits to mine or the environmental effects of burning them. But energy can come from solar, wind, nuclear and other sources. It's possible that 200 years from now, we'll have hit a wall on energy, but it's also possible that we'll have increased our energy consumption by orders of magnitude. Other than that, I think it's hard to think of economic growth for periods longer than a few generations. When economists say that a dollar in 2015 is worth $X in 1066 and we are Y% richer, that's a very leaky metaphor. It's basically saying that a sheep or a loaf of bread cost x in 1066 and people made z every day and if we take our daily salary and divide it by loaves of bread and sheep then we don't really have to consider that we buy ipods and toothpaste and they bought slaves and mutton. It's just nonsensical to try and represent it quantitatively. So economic growth in the long term is hard to think about in numbers. Say a vaccine for cancer, alzheimer's & diabetes was invented tomorrow. You would be willing to pay money for that and glad of the opportunity. That's economic growth. The researchers uses lithium in their laptops and fossil fuel to keep the lights on, but still I don't think natural resources will bound this kind of thing.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Keep in mind that we're talking about exponential growth which by definition means that in every step you consume more than in all of history combined. So today the boundary can be very far away, and it will stay so until suddenly you hit it and then act surprised. "Increasing our energy consumption by orders of magnitude" means that in 200 years we'll eat the sun, and in the next 200 years we'll swallow the galaxy (actually we won't, thanks to the speed of light limit, but I guess we'd be indistinguishable from a universe-destroying ever-expanding shockwave). We really do have to slow down at some point, exponential growth is not sustainable. Also, the primary problem is not really the growth itself, but the need for it that is built into the basic assumptions of economy - because if and when we'll eventually hit a speedbump, everything will collapse.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Exponential growth can be much smaller than that. For instance, 1% growth is exponential (as is 0.01% growth, and so on). In the case of 1% growth the second interval is larger than the first, but the third is not larger than the first and second combined (it's still roughly 1/2 that).
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      Exponential growth does mean that there exists some interval length over which the function doubles regardless of your point in the curve. It's certainly true that it won't be true for all interval lengths - that is obviously mathematically nonsensical.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > that is obviously mathematically nonsensical. In a finite universe, yes, it is clearly nonsense. Exponential growth cannot continue forever in a finite universe, no matter how small the growth constant.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        Your comment is unrelated to what I was discussing in the quoted section. I was saying you can't have growth for which f(n + k) = 2 f(n) for all k > 0 (I believe the only solution to that is f(n) = 0, which isn't what anyone is talking about when they talk about "exponential growth"...). This point was intended, in contrast with what I'd just said about there existing some k - to stress the notion of when the interval is picked.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I know. I was agreeing with you. In fact, I was giving a proof that your position was correct. Apparently, I wasn't doing it well, but that's what I was trying to do.
justonepost 11y ago
If you want to define our economy and GDP in terms of consuming, yeah, we're screwed. I think there are more enlightened ways of looking at things. Like security, free time, good health, educated and artistic people, etc.

Given that any resouce you can think of is bounded, no, it is impossible.

by hebdo 11y ago

Given that any resouce you can think of is bounded, no, it is impossible.

Bounded theoretically, yes. But the boundary can be so far away that it doesn't matter. Take energy. Oil & coal are certainly bounded, either by available deposits to mine or the environmental effects of burning them. But energy can come from solar, wind, nuclear and other sources. It's possible that 200 years from now, we'll have hit a wall on energy, but it's also possible that we'll have increased our energy consumption by orders of magnitude. Other than that, I think it's hard to think of economic growth for periods longer than a few generations. When economists say that a dollar in 2015 is worth $X in 1066 and we are Y% richer, that's a very leaky metaphor. It's basically saying that a sheep or a loaf of bread cost x in 1066 and people made z every day and if we take our daily salary and divide it by loaves of bread and sheep then we don't really have to consider that we buy ipods and toothpaste and they bought slaves and mutton. It's just nonsensical to try and represent it quantitatively. So economic growth in the long term is hard to think about in numbers. Say a vaccine for cancer, alzheimer's & diabetes was invented tomorrow. You would be willing to pay money for that and glad of the opportunity. That's economic growth. The researchers uses lithium in their laptops and fossil fuel to keep the lights on, but still I don't think natural resources will bound this kind of thing.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Keep in mind that we're talking about exponential growth which by definition means that in every step you consume more than in all of history combined. So today the boundary can be very far away, and it will stay so until suddenly you hit it and then act surprised. "Increasing our energy consumption by orders of magnitude" means that in 200 years we'll eat the sun, and in the next 200 years we'll swallow the galaxy (actually we won't, thanks to the speed of light limit, but I guess we'd be indistinguishable from a universe-destroying ever-expanding shockwave). We really do have to slow down at some point, exponential growth is not sustainable. Also, the primary problem is not really the growth itself, but the need for it that is built into the basic assumptions of economy - because if and when we'll eventually hit a speedbump, everything will collapse.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Exponential growth can be much smaller than that. For instance, 1% growth is exponential (as is 0.01% growth, and so on). In the case of 1% growth the second interval is larger than the first, but the third is not larger than the first and second combined (it's still roughly 1/2 that).
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    Exponential growth does mean that there exists some interval length over which the function doubles regardless of your point in the curve. It's certainly true that it won't be true for all interval lengths - that is obviously mathematically nonsensical.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > that is obviously mathematically nonsensical. In a finite universe, yes, it is clearly nonsense. Exponential growth cannot continue forever in a finite universe, no matter how small the growth constant.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        Your comment is unrelated to what I was discussing in the quoted section. I was saying you can't have growth for which f(n + k) = 2 f(n) for all k > 0 (I believe the only solution to that is f(n) = 0, which isn't what anyone is talking about when they talk about "exponential growth"...). This point was intended, in contrast with what I'd just said about there existing some k - to stress the notion of when the interval is picked.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        I know. I was agreeing with you. In fact, I was giving a proof that your position was correct. Apparently, I wasn't doing it well, but that's what I was trying to do.

justonepost 11y ago

If you want to define our economy and GDP in terms of consuming, yeah, we're screwed. I think there are more enlightened ways of looking at things. Like security, free time, good health, educated and artistic people, etc.