5 ms·

You can ridicule the specifics, but the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resou

You can ridicule the specifics, but the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources, or you have to find a way to have a stable society without economic growth. I see no reason to think the former is possible, so that leaves the latter. The alternative is some kind of calamity.

01100011 7y ago
> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term. I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, but assuming it is true I think we've come a long way in changing that and the future looks even better.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  You can only increase efficiency so far. I do agree that a reduction in population would result in lower resource usage, but that's an economic slowdown, i.e. the opposite of growth.
  - username444 7y ago
    Isn't economic retraction the opposite of economic growth?
    - rebuilder 7y ago
      You're right, that's what I meant to say.
- hannob 7y ago
  > Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less Actually no, we haven't and we don't. Carbon emissions are still growing. Classic mistake: You're confusing relative and absolute reductions. We have reduced relative ecological impact a lot, but overall impact has been growing along the way.
  - fvdessen 7y ago
    Carbon emissions are decreasing in Europe despite economic growth. Nature is getting in better shape as well.
    - hnhg 7y ago
      Can you explain how nature is getting in better shape? Everything I have read contradicts your statement.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        There's more forest in Europe now than a hundred years ago.
    - BlueTemplar 7y ago
      Well, Europe (and US) also outsourced most of their dirties industries to China...
  - undreren 7y ago
    This is also called Jevon’s paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
    - EForEndeavour 7y ago
      Today I learned! Pedantic corrections: - It's the Jevons Paradox (not Jevon's), named after William Stanley Jevons - non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- drorco 7y ago
  One way technology can really decrease consumption is by turning humans to machines. If you are essentially a CPU, your energy consumption would likely be very low yet your computational power and lifespan could be much higher. This way earth could support a much higher quantity of "humans", being mostly electric, it could even leave the confinements of earth, this way freeing earth. The only challenge left is to maintain cognitive growth drives when you're based on electricity, rather than hormones among other chemicals.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    This is only viable if you're willing to sacrifice the biosphere in the process.
lazyjones 7y ago
> the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources, or you have to find a way to have a stable society without economic growth That's just a narrow-minded false dilemma. There's a (for all practical purposes) infinite universe out there, we have plenty of resources to grow even if we stop recycling.
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Aside from the practicality of expanding fast enough (Dyson sphere around the sun in about 1400 years, needing to leave the galaxy in 2400 years), how far can you feasibly bring resources back to earth from to fuel that growth here? If you can't do that at some point, you have to stop growing locally even if the species is expanding. And besides, without FTL travel we're not going to be colonizing anything, just spreading seeds of new societies and, eventually, species that happen to be our offspring.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  The rate of growth matters too : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380
christkv 7y ago
Attempted mass colonization of the moon and mars might cause massive economic growth with less consumer consumption ?
- rebuilder 7y ago
  That could kick the can down the road a bit, yes.

01100011 7y ago

> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term. I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, but assuming it is true I think we've come a long way in changing that and the future looks even better.

rebuilder 7y ago
You can only increase efficiency so far. I do agree that a reduction in population would result in lower resource usage, but that's an economic slowdown, i.e. the opposite of growth.
- username444 7y ago
  Isn't economic retraction the opposite of economic growth?
  - rebuilder 7y ago
    You're right, that's what I meant to say.
hannob 7y ago
> Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less Actually no, we haven't and we don't. Carbon emissions are still growing. Classic mistake: You're confusing relative and absolute reductions. We have reduced relative ecological impact a lot, but overall impact has been growing along the way.
- fvdessen 7y ago
  Carbon emissions are decreasing in Europe despite economic growth. Nature is getting in better shape as well.
  - hnhg 7y ago
    Can you explain how nature is getting in better shape? Everything I have read contradicts your statement.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      There's more forest in Europe now than a hundred years ago.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    Well, Europe (and US) also outsourced most of their dirties industries to China...
- undreren 7y ago
  This is also called Jevon’s paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    Today I learned! Pedantic corrections: - It's the Jevons Paradox (not Jevon's), named after William Stanley Jevons - non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
drorco 7y ago
One way technology can really decrease consumption is by turning humans to machines. If you are essentially a CPU, your energy consumption would likely be very low yet your computational power and lifespan could be much higher. This way earth could support a much higher quantity of "humans", being mostly electric, it could even leave the confinements of earth, this way freeing earth. The only challenge left is to maintain cognitive growth drives when you're based on electricity, rather than hormones among other chemicals.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  This is only viable if you're willing to sacrifice the biosphere in the process.

lazyjones 7y ago

> the high-level idea here is spot on. Either you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources, or you have to find a way to have a stable society without economic growth That's just a narrow-minded false dilemma. There's a (for all practical purposes) infinite universe out there, we have plenty of resources to grow even if we stop recycling.

rebuilder 7y ago
Aside from the practicality of expanding fast enough (Dyson sphere around the sun in about 1400 years, needing to leave the galaxy in 2400 years), how far can you feasibly bring resources back to earth from to fuel that growth here? If you can't do that at some point, you have to stop growing locally even if the species is expanding. And besides, without FTL travel we're not going to be colonizing anything, just spreading seeds of new societies and, eventually, species that happen to be our offspring.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
The rate of growth matters too : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20045380

christkv 7y ago

Attempted mass colonization of the moon and mars might cause massive economic growth with less consumer consumption ?

rebuilder 7y ago
That could kick the can down the road a bit, yes.