4 ms·

Whenever I read things like this. I am reminded of Hans Rosling's "Global population growth, box by box"[1]. The only question is, how to transition to a "stea

Whenever I read things like this. I am reminded of Hans Rosling's "Global population growth, box by box"[1]. The only question is, how to transition to a "steady state economy"[2][3] or "non growth economies", when population really reaches some kind of equilibrium. As growth is the only concept humans for the last tens of thousands of years knew, this transition, while absolutely necessary, will be hard and hurt lots of people I believe. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_of_money

3pt14159 10y ago
A steady state economy will never, ever happen. We'll sooner extinguish our planet. The reason is simple: technological progress is a national security matter. It can't be stopped. Even coordinated treatise would be subverted. With technological progress more and more output for the same amount of input is possible. Now you could argue for a steady state population. Or at least for a period of time where we have a steady state population (before starships are prevalent) and I could start to see that happening, but as long as there is intelligence and peace the economy will continue to grow.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  Knowledge will most likely grow, but with a steady population the only true GDP growth can come from moving people out of poverty and into the higher income brackets. Once everyone is there, what real growth is there?
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Even higher income brackets? I don't know what you mean by "true" GDP growth. It feels like you're making some non-standard distinction but not explaining it.
  - nradov 10y ago
    In a knowledge based economy there is no upper limit on income. Theoretically it could continue growing indefinitely even with a stable population.
sevensor 10y ago
It's interesting that economists' notions of "steady-state" differ so much from engineers'. I think of a "steady-state" as being cyclical rather than static, and I think this is probably more realistic for human populations as well. Instead of population completely flattening out, I see cultural shifts, climate change, and wars driving continued fluctuation. Hopefully our poles are in the left half of the plane.
hx87 10y ago
Continuous economic growth is a relatively recent phenomenon closely coupled to continuous technological and scientific innovation. Economic growth for much of the premodern era average out pretty close to zero (and on a per-capita basis, negative), since once you have put all feasible lands under cultivation and built up all possible cities, with a stagnant technological base no further growth is possible.

3pt14159 10y ago

A steady state economy will never, ever happen. We'll sooner extinguish our planet. The reason is simple: technological progress is a national security matter. It can't be stopped. Even coordinated treatise would be subverted. With technological progress more and more output for the same amount of input is possible. Now you could argue for a steady state population. Or at least for a period of time where we have a steady state population (before starships are prevalent) and I could start to see that happening, but as long as there is intelligence and peace the economy will continue to grow.

BatFastard 10y ago
Knowledge will most likely grow, but with a steady population the only true GDP growth can come from moving people out of poverty and into the higher income brackets. Once everyone is there, what real growth is there?
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Even higher income brackets? I don't know what you mean by "true" GDP growth. It feels like you're making some non-standard distinction but not explaining it.
- nradov 10y ago
  In a knowledge based economy there is no upper limit on income. Theoretically it could continue growing indefinitely even with a stable population.

sevensor 10y ago

It's interesting that economists' notions of "steady-state" differ so much from engineers'. I think of a "steady-state" as being cyclical rather than static, and I think this is probably more realistic for human populations as well. Instead of population completely flattening out, I see cultural shifts, climate change, and wars driving continued fluctuation. Hopefully our poles are in the left half of the plane.

hx87 10y ago

Continuous economic growth is a relatively recent phenomenon closely coupled to continuous technological and scientific innovation. Economic growth for much of the premodern era average out pretty close to zero (and on a per-capita basis, negative), since once you have put all feasible lands under cultivation and built up all possible cities, with a stagnant technological base no further growth is possible.