3 ms·

For your first scenario economic growth must be fueled by a proportional growth in energy consumption. Fossil and Nuclear fuels exist in finite quantities, and

by pygy_ 10y ago

For your first scenario economic growth must be fueled by a proportional growth in energy consumption. Fossil and Nuclear fuels exist in finite quantities, and the rate of sunlight that hits earth is more or less constant. Most people would still starve as fields would be repurposed to produce fuel.

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
Maybe it would only last a few years. But once we can convert capital directly into labour in a manner that scales, we will get insane amounts of economic growth.
- pygy_ 10y ago
  Indeed, but it remains to be seen if such growth would benefit the idling meat bags left unemployed.
- ffwd 10y ago
  I understand what you're saying but I think it's bad to use the term 'economic' growth. There would be potential productivity growth but not necessarily economic growth, since the economy is a human endeavour. AIs don't need money and won't contribute to money, and the machines would only be 'allowed' to produce what the customers would be able to buy (so essentially the current economy), unless they would produce lots of extra stuff just for the hell of it. To have all that growth I think you'd need to decouple the machines from the economy but then distributing natural resources would be a problem, and then you come back to central planning and that's a whole other can of worms.
clarkmoody 10y ago
Not necessarily. Or rather, the growth of wealth could double every few months. And this wealth effect could be due to massive reductions in labor costs by employing AI, leading to increases in standard of living as the price of good plummets. I haven't looked at charts for the economy as a whole, but I bet certain kinds of technology provide nonlinear benefits for linear growth in energy consumption. Think about one computer replacing a roomful of workers doing hand calculations. (We don't moan about losing those jobs, by the way.) Yes, the computer was the results of decades of progress and investment, but looking at the marginal energy consumption of the finished good compared with that of a roomful of humans, there is no comparison. Also, as long as we're talking sci-fi, why stop at harvesting energy from the earth. Until we capture 100% of the energy emanating from the sun, we have a long way to go as a race as far as energy consumption limitations.
- stalcottsmith 10y ago
  The general price of goods plummeting would be seen by most modern economists as something of a disaster -- so occupied are they with engineering inflation. I don't think any mainstream economists have models or theories of economic development or social organization that would take us to a Kardashev level 2 civilization.

by pygy_ 10y ago

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago

Maybe it would only last a few years. But once we can convert capital directly into labour in a manner that scales, we will get insane amounts of economic growth.

pygy_ 10y ago
Indeed, but it remains to be seen if such growth would benefit the idling meat bags left unemployed.
ffwd 10y ago
I understand what you're saying but I think it's bad to use the term 'economic' growth. There would be potential productivity growth but not necessarily economic growth, since the economy is a human endeavour. AIs don't need money and won't contribute to money, and the machines would only be 'allowed' to produce what the customers would be able to buy (so essentially the current economy), unless they would produce lots of extra stuff just for the hell of it. To have all that growth I think you'd need to decouple the machines from the economy but then distributing natural resources would be a problem, and then you come back to central planning and that's a whole other can of worms.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Not necessarily. Or rather, the growth of wealth could double every few months. And this wealth effect could be due to massive reductions in labor costs by employing AI, leading to increases in standard of living as the price of good plummets. I haven't looked at charts for the economy as a whole, but I bet certain kinds of technology provide nonlinear benefits for linear growth in energy consumption. Think about one computer replacing a roomful of workers doing hand calculations. (We don't moan about losing those jobs, by the way.) Yes, the computer was the results of decades of progress and investment, but looking at the marginal energy consumption of the finished good compared with that of a roomful of humans, there is no comparison. Also, as long as we're talking sci-fi, why stop at harvesting energy from the earth. Until we capture 100% of the energy emanating from the sun, we have a long way to go as a race as far as energy consumption limitations.

stalcottsmith 10y ago
The general price of goods plummeting would be seen by most modern economists as something of a disaster -- so occupied are they with engineering inflation. I don't think any mainstream economists have models or theories of economic development or social organization that would take us to a Kardashev level 2 civilization.