3 ms·

From the article: One of the bad things about open-ended growth, growing faster than exponentially, is that open-ended growth eventually leads to collapse. Ho

by rer 10y ago

From the article: One of the bad things about open-ended growth, growing faster than exponentially, is that open-ended growth eventually leads to collapse. How do you avoid that? Well, how have we avoided it? We've avoided it by innovation. There's a theorem you can prove that says that if you demand continuous open growth, you have to have continuous cycles of innovation. Theory says, sure, you can get out of collapse by innovating, but you have to innovate faster and faster. The question then is, is this sustainable?

anexprogrammer 10y ago
> Well, how have we avoided it? We've avoided it by innovation Depends what period you look at and what extent of collapse you're looking at. Look at the history of civilization and it seems to be a series of growths and collapses. After a collapse a formerly backward region will spring ahead. So have we avoided it, or are we just delaying it? We seem to be generating some global scale problems from that industrialisation and innovation (plastics, oil, environment and so on). Can we innovate our way out of those fast enough and on a large enough scale? Perhaps the next crash just gets to be harder as a result.
- schiffern 10y ago
  >So have we avoided it, or are we just delaying it? ... Perhaps the next crash just gets to be harder as a result. In fact, this is exactly what West suggests (just not in this relatively puffy treatment of his ideas). He's compared societal progress to a series of treadmills. In order to keep up with the necessary economic growth rate the treadmills are constantly getting faster (evolutionary progress) and we periodically have to jump from one treadmill to another (revolutionary innovation) and we must switch treadmills at an ever-increasing pace (shortening technology cycles). The problem of course being that you eventually have a heart attack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc

by rer 10y ago

anexprogrammer 10y ago

> Well, how have we avoided it? We've avoided it by innovation Depends what period you look at and what extent of collapse you're looking at. Look at the history of civilization and it seems to be a series of growths and collapses. After a collapse a formerly backward region will spring ahead. So have we avoided it, or are we just delaying it? We seem to be generating some global scale problems from that industrialisation and innovation (plastics, oil, environment and so on). Can we innovate our way out of those fast enough and on a large enough scale? Perhaps the next crash just gets to be harder as a result.

schiffern 10y ago
>So have we avoided it, or are we just delaying it? ... Perhaps the next crash just gets to be harder as a result. In fact, this is exactly what West suggests (just not in this relatively puffy treatment of his ideas). He's compared societal progress to a series of treadmills. In order to keep up with the necessary economic growth rate the treadmills are constantly getting faster (evolutionary progress) and we periodically have to jump from one treadmill to another (revolutionary innovation) and we must switch treadmills at an ever-increasing pace (shortening technology cycles). The problem of course being that you eventually have a heart attack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc