4 ms·

I think it's a condensed version of saying: If we have finite energy at a fixed price (of say 1% of GDP in total cost), then either the rest of the GDP (which

by dosy 7y ago

I think it's a condensed version of saying: If we have finite energy at a fixed price (of say 1% of GDP in total cost), then either the rest of the GDP (which is not energy) does not grow, and so the demand for that energy (and so its price) remains the same, or it tries to grow (and cannot "is stuck") because growth will increase demand for the energy and therefore drive up prices, but since it is energy and fundamental to everything, all prices will go up, so we will have inflation, but inflation is not growth.

acchow 7y ago
> but since it is energy and fundamental to everything, all prices will go up, so we will have inflation, but inflation is not growth. Oh ok... I see why I got lost. In my head I didn't hold the assumption that "all growth necessarily must consume more energy". This is assumed throughout the article until the Epilogue. But if you drop this assumption, then I don't think the "it's just inflation not growth" holds anymore.
- dosy 7y ago
  I had to parse that part a few times to get it myself, when I saw you didn't get it too I could relate. Then I had to think a few times about what you gave in response! It seems this part of the topic is quite involved. I think I get some of it now. If you drop the assumption that grow takes energy, then no extra demand on energy from growth, then no price increase on energy, then no inflation, and so it's just growth, not inflation. Agreed. But when you and me are examining it like this...the whole situation described by that sentence starts to seem a little contrived to me. Seems there's a lot of error bars on each of the assumed connections in that causal chain, that could lead that path to branch at each of them into many other possible paths, rather than just the one path that condensed sentence proposes. I still have a hard time imagining a growth that doesn't use more energy (except the one defined in that article as "development", which seems to be a more sophisticated/involved use of existing resources, rather than extracting/creating more new (primary) resources.) If you could elaborate some more on your images of growth that don't consume more energy, I'd find it helpful to understand this whole thing better.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    > I still have a hard time imagining a growth that doesn't use more energy (except the one defined in that article as "development", which seems to be a more sophisticated/involved use of existing resources, rather than extracting/creating more new (primary) resources.) Can’t you imagine efficiency gains leading to an increase in output (GDP) for constant inputs (resources)? That’s growth. (Note that the article talks about development as something different from GDP growth.)
    - dosy 7y ago
      Right, I think the article was saying development is GDP stagnation but increasing quality nonetheless, does that about match your understanding of it? I still can't really imagine the other scenario because when I see efficiency gains I think they will lead to growth and more energy usage. Examples like "increasing CPU power should have led to faster software, but instead it lead to slower languages and larger software". Same for memory and bandwidth. Our websites keep expanding to fill the next generation of network capacity. So the gains from efficiency are quickly consumed by increasing growth and energy use. Maybe you could help me imagine some that are not like that? I'd like that. It's easier for me to imagine the examples like in the article (more fancy dessert, same ingredients) that are there classed as development, distinct from growth. But growth as defined there, with static energy, I can't imagine right now.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        > I think the article was saying development is GDP stagnation but increasing quality nonetheless I don't know what the article is trying to say, really. It talks about "improving the quality of life" but I'm not sure if that includes factors that are already considered in GDP calculations (https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/papers/P2006-6_0.pdf https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/papers/P2006-6_0.pdf) or it's about immaterial quality of life improvements (more hapiness or whatever). > But growth as defined there, with static energy, I can't imagine right now. Say you have a factory producing 1000 widgets per day and you improve the efficiency of the process and now you produce 1100 widgets per day using the same quantities of labour, raw materials and energy. Don't you agree that this is growth?

by dosy 7y ago

acchow 7y ago

> but since it is energy and fundamental to everything, all prices will go up, so we will have inflation, but inflation is not growth. Oh ok... I see why I got lost. In my head I didn't hold the assumption that "all growth necessarily must consume more energy". This is assumed throughout the article until the Epilogue. But if you drop this assumption, then I don't think the "it's just inflation not growth" holds anymore.

dosy 7y ago
I had to parse that part a few times to get it myself, when I saw you didn't get it too I could relate. Then I had to think a few times about what you gave in response! It seems this part of the topic is quite involved. I think I get some of it now. If you drop the assumption that grow takes energy, then no extra demand on energy from growth, then no price increase on energy, then no inflation, and so it's just growth, not inflation. Agreed. But when you and me are examining it like this...the whole situation described by that sentence starts to seem a little contrived to me. Seems there's a lot of error bars on each of the assumed connections in that causal chain, that could lead that path to branch at each of them into many other possible paths, rather than just the one path that condensed sentence proposes. I still have a hard time imagining a growth that doesn't use more energy (except the one defined in that article as "development", which seems to be a more sophisticated/involved use of existing resources, rather than extracting/creating more new (primary) resources.) If you could elaborate some more on your images of growth that don't consume more energy, I'd find it helpful to understand this whole thing better.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  > I still have a hard time imagining a growth that doesn't use more energy (except the one defined in that article as "development", which seems to be a more sophisticated/involved use of existing resources, rather than extracting/creating more new (primary) resources.) Can’t you imagine efficiency gains leading to an increase in output (GDP) for constant inputs (resources)? That’s growth. (Note that the article talks about development as something different from GDP growth.)
  - dosy 7y ago
    Right, I think the article was saying development is GDP stagnation but increasing quality nonetheless, does that about match your understanding of it? I still can't really imagine the other scenario because when I see efficiency gains I think they will lead to growth and more energy usage. Examples like "increasing CPU power should have led to faster software, but instead it lead to slower languages and larger software". Same for memory and bandwidth. Our websites keep expanding to fill the next generation of network capacity. So the gains from efficiency are quickly consumed by increasing growth and energy use. Maybe you could help me imagine some that are not like that? I'd like that. It's easier for me to imagine the examples like in the article (more fancy dessert, same ingredients) that are there classed as development, distinct from growth. But growth as defined there, with static energy, I can't imagine right now.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      > I think the article was saying development is GDP stagnation but increasing quality nonetheless I don't know what the article is trying to say, really. It talks about "improving the quality of life" but I'm not sure if that includes factors that are already considered in GDP calculations (https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/papers/P2006-6_0.pdf https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/papers/P2006-6_0.pdf) or it's about immaterial quality of life improvements (more hapiness or whatever). > But growth as defined there, with static energy, I can't imagine right now. Say you have a factory producing 1000 widgets per day and you improve the efficiency of the process and now you produce 1100 widgets per day using the same quantities of labour, raw materials and energy. Don't you agree that this is growth?