3 ms·

What's misguided is your fatalistic application of thermodynamics. I of course understand that there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and that it

What's misguided is your fatalistic application of thermodynamics. I of course understand that there is a limited amount of energy in the universe, and that it will one day all stop due to heat death. I disagree that that has any impact on our much smaller, more limited human experience. I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
Thermodynamics does have an impact. I don't need to show you ludicrous examples to prove my point either. Take gasoline. When you use it, you convert it to a unusable state. Oil is finite and as fracking wanes the supply will lessen and the price will go up. This is not a unrealistic application, but a very real application of thermodynamics that will have a very real impact on your life. >I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. I don't ignore art or romance. But every economic product follows an economic food chain and the root of that chain is ALWAYS a raw resource. Take romance for instance: IN order to experience romance you must be alive. IN order to be alive you need food and air (raw resource). In order to make food you need to grow plants or animals. In order to grow an animal you need to feed it plants. In order to grow plants you need to give it earth (raw resource), sun (raw resource) and water (raw resource). Note how the economic chain splits into many threads and always terminates at a raw resource. This chain of dependence ends at a resource that is limited therefore all of art and other abstractions are limited. >Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes. What's unfortunate is not the fact that I have an argument but the fact that you have NO argument.
- mhluongo 10y ago
  My argument is fairly straightforward. The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    You argument is not straightforward. It is logically flawed. > The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. You don't have access to the universe. You only have access to the earth. If you reduce the time horizon to centuries you must also reduce the resource horizon to that which is available on earth. The earth is a highly limited resource. The situation is not even close to your flawed argument of limited appetites vs unlimited resources. That is fairly straight forward. I never talked about the heat death of the universe nor any epic cataclysms outside of the human experience. That came from you. Thermodynamics applies to smaller systems as well as the universe and is highly relevant to the human experience. >Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. How is nuclear power not a zero sum game? Follow the economic chain. Nuclear power involves a resource called uranium. Uranium is used up in process of generating nuclear energy. Uranium is mined from the earth and therefore limited. Additionally, the global supply of uranium is nowhere near high enough to be classified as a seemingly 'unlimited' resource. You cannot escape the game. Your best argument here is the sun. The sun can be classified as a seemingly 'unlimited' resource. However the bottleneck here is the amount of solar energy we can extract from the sun. That energy amount extracted is limited by technology and physics to a concrete amount. That concrete amount is significantly less than the energy we demand. >We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory. By claiming that economic activity is not a zero sum game is an abuse of reality. Find an example that isn't zero sum. Find a resource that isn't constrained.

crimsonalucard 10y ago

Thermodynamics does have an impact. I don't need to show you ludicrous examples to prove my point either. Take gasoline. When you use it, you convert it to a unusable state. Oil is finite and as fracking wanes the supply will lessen and the price will go up. This is not a unrealistic application, but a very real application of thermodynamics that will have a very real impact on your life. >I also disagree that the entirety of human demand is about raw resources, ignoring art, romance, or other interests in our lives. I don't ignore art or romance. But every economic product follows an economic food chain and the root of that chain is ALWAYS a raw resource. Take romance for instance: IN order to experience romance you must be alive. IN order to be alive you need food and air (raw resource). In order to make food you need to grow plants or animals. In order to grow an animal you need to feed it plants. In order to grow plants you need to give it earth (raw resource), sun (raw resource) and water (raw resource). Note how the economic chain splits into many threads and always terminates at a raw resource. This chain of dependence ends at a resource that is limited therefore all of art and other abstractions are limited. >Unfortunately, you'd then argue that there are only 10^78 atoms in the universe, with which we can only build 10^24 paintbrushes. What's unfortunate is not the fact that I have an argument but the fact that you have NO argument.

mhluongo 10y ago
My argument is fairly straightforward. The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  You argument is not straightforward. It is logically flawed. > The universe is much larger than our appetites, and that's the horizon we're talking about with economics- centuries, not the heat death of the universe. You don't have access to the universe. You only have access to the earth. If you reduce the time horizon to centuries you must also reduce the resource horizon to that which is available on earth. The earth is a highly limited resource. The situation is not even close to your flawed argument of limited appetites vs unlimited resources. That is fairly straight forward. I never talked about the heat death of the universe nor any epic cataclysms outside of the human experience. That came from you. Thermodynamics applies to smaller systems as well as the universe and is highly relevant to the human experience. >Your comment about gasoline is a good example of a resource that has a real world constraint, but it doesn't show that economics is zero sum. It shows that the limited game, where the goal is to obtain as much gasoline as possible, is zero sum. If I also use nuclear power, I'm not playing that game. How is nuclear power not a zero sum game? Follow the economic chain. Nuclear power involves a resource called uranium. Uranium is used up in process of generating nuclear energy. Uranium is mined from the earth and therefore limited. Additionally, the global supply of uranium is nowhere near high enough to be classified as a seemingly 'unlimited' resource. You cannot escape the game. Your best argument here is the sun. The sun can be classified as a seemingly 'unlimited' resource. However the bottleneck here is the amount of solar energy we can extract from the sun. That energy amount extracted is limited by technology and physics to a concrete amount. That concrete amount is significantly less than the energy we demand. >We have a sad tendency to ignore negative externalities, as a species. And it could be our undoing. But countering that by claiming that human econonic activity is zero sum is an abuse of game theory. By claiming that economic activity is not a zero sum game is an abuse of reality. Find an example that isn't zero sum. Find a resource that isn't constrained.