4 ms·

The less cynical interpretation is that "real goods and services" captures the value people derive from them, rather than some objective measure like "energy co

The less cynical interpretation is that "real goods and services" captures the value people derive from them, rather than some objective measure like "energy consumption". There's no innate reason why we can't figure out more and more valuable ways to do things pretty much indefinitely.

bshipp 7y ago
Indeed. Take a look at cars, for example. My little 2.0L engine makes more power than a 1970's V8 behemoth could have dreamt of, while simultaneously getting fantastic fuel mileage with minimal pollutants (in comparison). It's by no means perfect, but by any objective measure it's providing me with more value at a lower energy cost. Energy cost to operate, energy cost to build, energy cost to maintain. And that trend is most certainly not going to reverse any time soon.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  There is a physical limit to the efficiency of a heat engine though. If your powertrain is 25% efficient, you can double it to 50%. But if it's 50%, you cannot double it to 100% unless the engine is operating at a temperature of absolute zero. You're going to reach a point- and current model cars are probably just about there- where the engine is operating about as efficiently as the laws of physics permit, and then you're not going to make further progress. Just google "Carnot cycle" and you can learn more.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    >- and current model cars are probably just about there- Very true, in order to get more progress, one would have to develop systems that are sufficiently different and more efficient at some level which may be odds with how we currently allocate resources.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Such as series hybrids and electric cars. (Dropping complex transmission for batteries, but using a more efficient engine.) At some point though friction against road and minimum weight for safety and comfort come into play, and once you optimize these you end up with a train. :) It's the same problem electronics face right now, when they really butt into quantum physics and consequently have huge yield issues - and you can scale horizontally (more transistors) only for subset of problems.
      - cinquemb 7y ago
        Neither of which are physical limitations, just limitations on our understanding of physics and our ability to apply them to issues of the day. We are always in the process of trying to determine what the limits of physics actually are (modulo a given societies acceptance level of such experimentation and mechanisms to explore such).
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        We actually know the limits of information density from bottom, that puts a bottom floor on electronics unless someone really figures out new physics. Likewise we know bottom floor for efficiency during transit in atmosphere under same condition. Breaking both in any major way would require or beget actual teleportation. (Which unlike electricity or moving in atmosphere has not been seen in nature.) There does exist a series of absolute limits on Earth, such as capacity for growing food limited on sunlight, water and availability of specific minerals. Inserting more planets adds to that limit with a transportation losses... Unknown exactly but bottom floor is easy to figure out for spaceflight and mining (unless teleportation). You can even limit maximum size of "life speed" cone around Earth which would be the maximum distance we can get things from during lifetime of any person. (Unless immortality or teleportation or high multiplier FTL.)
        cinquemb 7y ago
        Such limits are derived from our current understanding, of which one would have probably given a completely different answers 150 years ago based on our understanding then. >Breaking both in any major way would require or beget actual teleportation. (Which unlike electricity or moving in atmosphere has not been seen in nature.) Well maybe we haven't seen them because we didn't know how to look… recently declassified FLIR from US navy reporting archives suggest things that we haven't typically seen in nature in the past, can be seen. >There does exist a series of absolute limits on Earth, such as capacity for growing food limited on sunlight, water and availability of specific minerals. True, but what is the purpose of any of these things, and do we currently pursue the most efficient ways of doing such for those ends in a way that we cannot think about it anymore?
paraschopra 7y ago
It depends what you call and measure as value. If it’s production or goods, there’s obviously an upper limit. Even if in distant future, we begin assembling atoms into making novel rare elements, all that process consumes energy and possibly would produce waste. Production is not free. In the exponential limit, we will hit some constraint. If we are talking about services, we should realise that even they cost energy. Even if we tomorrow think that long distance travel will be replaced by VR, production and delivery of such experiences cost energy. Fundamental argument is then about energy. Can we keep harnessing it infinitely? No. Even if we make energy efficient processes, Jevon’s paradox suggests we will simply start using more energy. The only way physical limits can be respected is by limiting the growth of economy and population. (Otherwise if we keep printing money without increase in production, it isn’t really economic growth)
- cinquemb 7y ago
  > Fundamental argument is then about energy. Can we keep harnessing it infinitely? No. Even if we make energy efficient processes, Jevon’s paradox suggests we will simply start using more energy. The thing about infinity is that while it is a limit, it can always be approached based on ones understanding. And I would not state that our knowledge and application of energy collection/generation (and even energy itself) is fairly limited. >The only way physical limits can be respected is by limiting the growth of economy and population. (Otherwise if we keep printing money without increase in production, it isn’t really economic growth) I disagree (and debt monetization != printing money), naturally markets and systems will correct. They always have, even when people try to distort it and keep them from correcting.
  - paraschopra 7y ago
    >naturally markets and systems will correct. Markets and systems obviously correct, but the key question is at what cost and to whom. Imagine for a moment that we find ourselves in a situation where energy is limited. Markets will correct themselves by making it expensive, but who'll suffer the most is the poor (while markets might have been reacting to overconsumption by the rich). Saying markets will correct themselves is like saying things sort out themselves. They do, but usually who takes a hit isn't fair and ethical (as was evident by 2008 crisis).
fallingfrog 7y ago
If by "pretty much indefinitely" you mean "one or two human lifetimes", then sure. Our horizons are so compact these days. Certainly not for thousands of years, running the math gives absurd results for any growth rate.

bshipp 7y ago

Indeed. Take a look at cars, for example. My little 2.0L engine makes more power than a 1970's V8 behemoth could have dreamt of, while simultaneously getting fantastic fuel mileage with minimal pollutants (in comparison). It's by no means perfect, but by any objective measure it's providing me with more value at a lower energy cost. Energy cost to operate, energy cost to build, energy cost to maintain. And that trend is most certainly not going to reverse any time soon.

fallingfrog 7y ago
There is a physical limit to the efficiency of a heat engine though. If your powertrain is 25% efficient, you can double it to 50%. But if it's 50%, you cannot double it to 100% unless the engine is operating at a temperature of absolute zero. You're going to reach a point- and current model cars are probably just about there- where the engine is operating about as efficiently as the laws of physics permit, and then you're not going to make further progress. Just google "Carnot cycle" and you can learn more.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  >- and current model cars are probably just about there- Very true, in order to get more progress, one would have to develop systems that are sufficiently different and more efficient at some level which may be odds with how we currently allocate resources.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Such as series hybrids and electric cars. (Dropping complex transmission for batteries, but using a more efficient engine.) At some point though friction against road and minimum weight for safety and comfort come into play, and once you optimize these you end up with a train. :) It's the same problem electronics face right now, when they really butt into quantum physics and consequently have huge yield issues - and you can scale horizontally (more transistors) only for subset of problems.
    - cinquemb 7y ago
      Neither of which are physical limitations, just limitations on our understanding of physics and our ability to apply them to issues of the day. We are always in the process of trying to determine what the limits of physics actually are (modulo a given societies acceptance level of such experimentation and mechanisms to explore such).
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        We actually know the limits of information density from bottom, that puts a bottom floor on electronics unless someone really figures out new physics. Likewise we know bottom floor for efficiency during transit in atmosphere under same condition. Breaking both in any major way would require or beget actual teleportation. (Which unlike electricity or moving in atmosphere has not been seen in nature.) There does exist a series of absolute limits on Earth, such as capacity for growing food limited on sunlight, water and availability of specific minerals. Inserting more planets adds to that limit with a transportation losses... Unknown exactly but bottom floor is easy to figure out for spaceflight and mining (unless teleportation). You can even limit maximum size of "life speed" cone around Earth which would be the maximum distance we can get things from during lifetime of any person. (Unless immortality or teleportation or high multiplier FTL.)
        cinquemb 7y ago
        Such limits are derived from our current understanding, of which one would have probably given a completely different answers 150 years ago based on our understanding then. >Breaking both in any major way would require or beget actual teleportation. (Which unlike electricity or moving in atmosphere has not been seen in nature.) Well maybe we haven't seen them because we didn't know how to look… recently declassified FLIR from US navy reporting archives suggest things that we haven't typically seen in nature in the past, can be seen. >There does exist a series of absolute limits on Earth, such as capacity for growing food limited on sunlight, water and availability of specific minerals. True, but what is the purpose of any of these things, and do we currently pursue the most efficient ways of doing such for those ends in a way that we cannot think about it anymore?

paraschopra 7y ago

It depends what you call and measure as value. If it’s production or goods, there’s obviously an upper limit. Even if in distant future, we begin assembling atoms into making novel rare elements, all that process consumes energy and possibly would produce waste. Production is not free. In the exponential limit, we will hit some constraint. If we are talking about services, we should realise that even they cost energy. Even if we tomorrow think that long distance travel will be replaced by VR, production and delivery of such experiences cost energy. Fundamental argument is then about energy. Can we keep harnessing it infinitely? No. Even if we make energy efficient processes, Jevon’s paradox suggests we will simply start using more energy. The only way physical limits can be respected is by limiting the growth of economy and population. (Otherwise if we keep printing money without increase in production, it isn’t really economic growth)

cinquemb 7y ago
> Fundamental argument is then about energy. Can we keep harnessing it infinitely? No. Even if we make energy efficient processes, Jevon’s paradox suggests we will simply start using more energy. The thing about infinity is that while it is a limit, it can always be approached based on ones understanding. And I would not state that our knowledge and application of energy collection/generation (and even energy itself) is fairly limited. >The only way physical limits can be respected is by limiting the growth of economy and population. (Otherwise if we keep printing money without increase in production, it isn’t really economic growth) I disagree (and debt monetization != printing money), naturally markets and systems will correct. They always have, even when people try to distort it and keep them from correcting.
- paraschopra 7y ago
  >naturally markets and systems will correct. Markets and systems obviously correct, but the key question is at what cost and to whom. Imagine for a moment that we find ourselves in a situation where energy is limited. Markets will correct themselves by making it expensive, but who'll suffer the most is the poor (while markets might have been reacting to overconsumption by the rich). Saying markets will correct themselves is like saying things sort out themselves. They do, but usually who takes a hit isn't fair and ethical (as was evident by 2008 crisis).

fallingfrog 7y ago

If by "pretty much indefinitely" you mean "one or two human lifetimes", then sure. Our horizons are so compact these days. Certainly not for thousands of years, running the math gives absurd results for any growth rate.