3 ms·

I don't like this argument as it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Life on earth is only possible because we're receiving a constant flow

by ebalit 7y ago

I don't like this argument as it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Life on earth is only possible because we're receiving a constant flow of energy from the sun. Surely, we should not expect exponential growth, but it doesn't mean we could not have unlimited growth.

crispinb 7y ago
> it misses the fact that the Earth is not a closed system How so? It's not an argument per se - it's just a description of the physical reality that what economists falsely describe as 'growth' is actually a transfer of matter and energy from complex evolved sustainable systems (ie. what some people call 'nature', which I find to be misleading) to simple cultural-technological unsustainable systems. This transfer process damages the former to build the latter, increasing entropy (because our early-stage human tech is less ordered than evolved systems are). It is not 'growth' in any meaningful sense of the term at all, whether limited or unlimited.