4 ms·

> and likewise unemployment is a percentage you can't argue with (and easy to argue that less = better, again even if not always true). Actually one can. Incre

> and likewise unemployment is a percentage you can't argue with (and easy to argue that less = better, again even if not always true). Actually one can. Increase in productivity often comes from an increase in efficiency. More efficiency means you have spare resources, as you can now do the same work with less effort. What we do with these spare resources, that's a matter that isn't even discussed, they are pretty much always fully invested in furthering "economic growth" as in GDP, by investing all that spare time we now have, thanks to increased efficiency, into being even more productive for even longer periods. But how sustainable is all of this? Can Earth sustain a population of 10+ billion humans, the majority of them working full time and for longer times, using up resources at a rapidly increasing rate? It's a problem of thinking too short term on a global scale, everybody acts like this is some kind of race. But I don't think anybody will like what the finishing line will look like, there won't be prices there for anybody, there will be pretty much nothing.

goatlover 8y ago
> Can Earth sustain a population of 10+ billion humans, the majority of them working full time and for longer times, using up resources at a rapidly increasing rate? The alternative view is that all this activity generates innovation and problem solving, which increases th carrying capacity of the planet.
- freeflight 8y ago
  But that whole view is still based on perpetual growth ideas, which imho are quite risky. They have their place to drive expansion, and as you say innovation, but I fear we are giving it too much weight. It's a bit like the "super long-term view", we just assume that we will be constantly able to expand and grow. What lacks in this perspective are the resource restrictions of physical reality. By insisting on constant growth, with barely any considerations for sustainability, it's very likely that at some point in the future we will end up in a resource dead end with no escape. Case in point: Many of us realize Earth only has finite resources, the common counter-argument to that is that we need to innovate and expand into space, to get at these resources. By just assuming "We will get there anyway, so let's keep using up Earth resources at increasing rates" we are acting rather irresponsibly because there are no guarantees we will be able to be a sustainable space-faring species.

goatlover 8y ago

> Can Earth sustain a population of 10+ billion humans, the majority of them working full time and for longer times, using up resources at a rapidly increasing rate? The alternative view is that all this activity generates innovation and problem solving, which increases th carrying capacity of the planet.

freeflight 8y ago
But that whole view is still based on perpetual growth ideas, which imho are quite risky. They have their place to drive expansion, and as you say innovation, but I fear we are giving it too much weight. It's a bit like the "super long-term view", we just assume that we will be constantly able to expand and grow. What lacks in this perspective are the resource restrictions of physical reality. By insisting on constant growth, with barely any considerations for sustainability, it's very likely that at some point in the future we will end up in a resource dead end with no escape. Case in point: Many of us realize Earth only has finite resources, the common counter-argument to that is that we need to innovate and expand into space, to get at these resources. By just assuming "We will get there anyway, so let's keep using up Earth resources at increasing rates" we are acting rather irresponsibly because there are no guarantees we will be able to be a sustainable space-faring species.