6 ms·

Well, this is all assuming that humanity will not expand out of Earth. If that does happen, we might actually have a perpetually expanding populace and economy.

by pm90 8y ago

Well, this is all assuming that humanity will not expand out of Earth. If that does happen, we might actually have a perpetually expanding populace and economy. Fun times.

fbinthrow 8y ago
You just accidentally summarized why growth obsessed global capitalists are completely delusional.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > growth obsessed global capitalists are completely delusional Infinite growth and finite material resources are perfectly compatible. Case in point: Fortnite.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic; how does Fortnite demonstrate “infinite growth”?
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > how does Fortnite demonstrate “infinite growth”? Fortnite makes money by selling digital in-game goods. Their revenues could grow infinitely without their material footprint expanding one iota. What they demonstrate is not infinite growth, but the capacity for infinite growth in a finite universe. Value, at the end of the day, is subjective. Growth is a measure on this subjective value. It is not a measure on material inputs.
      - skissane 8y ago
        That's not infinite growth. There are only a finite number of humans on earth who could possibly play the game, and many of those either have no interest or can't afford to do so. And, of all those potential players, each of them only has finite disposable income. So there is a hard upper limit on their revenue, without growth in world population (to increase population of potential players) or growth in the world economy (to increase disposable income of those players). So, Fortnite is subject to the same finite growth limitations as every other business.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > There are only a finite number of humans on earth who could possibly play the game, and many of those either have no interest or can't afford to do so. And, of all those potential players, each of them only has finite disposable income. So there is a hard upper limit on their revenue The proposed metric, a product of population and incomes, is unbounded (in aggregate). Population isn’t. But nominal incomes, a function of the unbounded money supply, is. Real incomes are trickier, but they--too--are unbounded. It just requires some fraction of the basket be immaterial. As long as that component grows sufficiently, the real value of the basket–which, again, is subjective–grows. This isn't some edge-case philosophy, but a well-recognized effect of the subjective nature of value. (The physicist in me points out that the observable universe has, based on known physics, a finite computational capacity, but that objection merely illustrates the absurdity of proposing a practical upper bound on growth.) We're used to thinking of production as making cars and ships. Those activities represent a falling share of human activity (weighted by value). To illustrate, witness the falling material intensity and energy intensity of GDP growth.
        Faark 8y ago
        You two comments strongly remind me of what is currently happening in Venezuela. Having bigger numbers on your money or bank account isn't necessarily a good metric. Anyway, let me rephrase your argument to make sure I understand it correctly: There exists resource sinks like Fortnite, media & alike. Thus regardless of how much growth we will have / more efficient we become, even more would be better so we can spend it on those sinks. This seems technically correct, but I doubt this is how our civilization should spend the finite amount of resources available.
eloff 8y ago
I think you're assuming the current decline in birth rates is due to scarcity of resources. But I don't think that's true. In the developed world food and energy are not scarce, and even land outside of major metro areas is not scarce. Population might just stabilize at some point, and then there's not much of a driver to expand off of our planet (apart from some resource mining, and other activities.)
- colechristensen 8y ago
  Food and energy are not what defines scarcity any more. If you want to pay the mortgage, have a fulfilling job, have time to spend with your family, and give your child a good start in life, you can't have 8 kids in a middle class family. Sometimes 1 is the right number if you want your child to be successful and have enough free time to enjoy life yourself. That IS resource constraint, the resource just isn't food. The replacement rate is a little above 2 children in the modern world. Three kids is a burden for a lot of people.
  - eloff 8y ago
    What's the resource constraint then if it's not food, energy, or shelter? People want to buy more stuff? Hardly a requirement of years gone by. People want more free time? Doubtful, otherwise people would work less and buy less stuff - which we don't see. People keep getting more productive, but they just funnel that into a more expensive lifestyle rather than cutting back on work. I don't think the reasons are simple (or even the same between people) but I don't think it's dominated by resource constraints. I know software engineers with no children and school teachers with four. Very different lifestyles, but all middle class. And I don't think resource constraints factored heavily into their decision making.
    - chongli 8y ago
      The resource constraints now are time and location. It's affordable to buy houses in a lot of places, just not so many that have access to good jobs and schools. So people prioritize the latter and sacrifice their time by commuting for work. Since both parents now work, often with lengthy commutes, there isn't a whole lot of person-hours left to spend with the children. That means people have fewer of them. When the kids get older and it's time to send them to university, well, that's something which has gone backwards in affordability. The cost of a university degree has shot through the roof. How could anyone afford to send 3 kids to university these days, let alone 8?
rhacker 8y ago
The people left to live on earth will be more and more tied to doing mindless jobs. I think there are a lot of people that would be excited to start a new community on Mars, get paid to, basically exist and build homes (pods) and connect those pods to additional pods. The act of mining will have meaning again beyond helping someone else get rich off bitcoin.

by pm90 8y ago

Well, this is all assuming that humanity will not expand out of Earth. If that does happen, we might actually have a perpetually expanding populace and economy. Fun times.

fbinthrow 8y ago

You just accidentally summarized why growth obsessed global capitalists are completely delusional.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> growth obsessed global capitalists are completely delusional Infinite growth and finite material resources are perfectly compatible. Case in point: Fortnite.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic; how does Fortnite demonstrate “infinite growth”?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > how does Fortnite demonstrate “infinite growth”? Fortnite makes money by selling digital in-game goods. Their revenues could grow infinitely without their material footprint expanding one iota. What they demonstrate is not infinite growth, but the capacity for infinite growth in a finite universe. Value, at the end of the day, is subjective. Growth is a measure on this subjective value. It is not a measure on material inputs.
    - skissane 8y ago
      That's not infinite growth. There are only a finite number of humans on earth who could possibly play the game, and many of those either have no interest or can't afford to do so. And, of all those potential players, each of them only has finite disposable income. So there is a hard upper limit on their revenue, without growth in world population (to increase population of potential players) or growth in the world economy (to increase disposable income of those players). So, Fortnite is subject to the same finite growth limitations as every other business.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > There are only a finite number of humans on earth who could possibly play the game, and many of those either have no interest or can't afford to do so. And, of all those potential players, each of them only has finite disposable income. So there is a hard upper limit on their revenue The proposed metric, a product of population and incomes, is unbounded (in aggregate). Population isn’t. But nominal incomes, a function of the unbounded money supply, is. Real incomes are trickier, but they--too--are unbounded. It just requires some fraction of the basket be immaterial. As long as that component grows sufficiently, the real value of the basket–which, again, is subjective–grows. This isn't some edge-case philosophy, but a well-recognized effect of the subjective nature of value. (The physicist in me points out that the observable universe has, based on known physics, a finite computational capacity, but that objection merely illustrates the absurdity of proposing a practical upper bound on growth.) We're used to thinking of production as making cars and ships. Those activities represent a falling share of human activity (weighted by value). To illustrate, witness the falling material intensity and energy intensity of GDP growth.
        Faark 8y ago
        You two comments strongly remind me of what is currently happening in Venezuela. Having bigger numbers on your money or bank account isn't necessarily a good metric. Anyway, let me rephrase your argument to make sure I understand it correctly: There exists resource sinks like Fortnite, media & alike. Thus regardless of how much growth we will have / more efficient we become, even more would be better so we can spend it on those sinks. This seems technically correct, but I doubt this is how our civilization should spend the finite amount of resources available.

eloff 8y ago

I think you're assuming the current decline in birth rates is due to scarcity of resources. But I don't think that's true. In the developed world food and energy are not scarce, and even land outside of major metro areas is not scarce. Population might just stabilize at some point, and then there's not much of a driver to expand off of our planet (apart from some resource mining, and other activities.)

colechristensen 8y ago
Food and energy are not what defines scarcity any more. If you want to pay the mortgage, have a fulfilling job, have time to spend with your family, and give your child a good start in life, you can't have 8 kids in a middle class family. Sometimes 1 is the right number if you want your child to be successful and have enough free time to enjoy life yourself. That IS resource constraint, the resource just isn't food. The replacement rate is a little above 2 children in the modern world. Three kids is a burden for a lot of people.
- eloff 8y ago
  What's the resource constraint then if it's not food, energy, or shelter? People want to buy more stuff? Hardly a requirement of years gone by. People want more free time? Doubtful, otherwise people would work less and buy less stuff - which we don't see. People keep getting more productive, but they just funnel that into a more expensive lifestyle rather than cutting back on work. I don't think the reasons are simple (or even the same between people) but I don't think it's dominated by resource constraints. I know software engineers with no children and school teachers with four. Very different lifestyles, but all middle class. And I don't think resource constraints factored heavily into their decision making.
  - chongli 8y ago
    The resource constraints now are time and location. It's affordable to buy houses in a lot of places, just not so many that have access to good jobs and schools. So people prioritize the latter and sacrifice their time by commuting for work. Since both parents now work, often with lengthy commutes, there isn't a whole lot of person-hours left to spend with the children. That means people have fewer of them. When the kids get older and it's time to send them to university, well, that's something which has gone backwards in affordability. The cost of a university degree has shot through the roof. How could anyone afford to send 3 kids to university these days, let alone 8?

rhacker 8y ago

The people left to live on earth will be more and more tied to doing mindless jobs. I think there are a lot of people that would be excited to start a new community on Mars, get paid to, basically exist and build homes (pods) and connect those pods to additional pods. The act of mining will have meaning again beyond helping someone else get rich off bitcoin.