4 ms·

Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we

Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we use more energy overall.

eru 7y ago
What time in the past are you talking about? Funny enough, the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. Btw, your observation sounds much less surprising when you say 'transistors got cheaper since the 1970, yet we are spending more in total on transistors than ever'.
- tpxl 7y ago
  This is generally called Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient, demand rises because it is more efficient, which in the end leads to using more of the base resource (but getting a lot more for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Not true at all, like all paradoxes its loosely defined and not quantified, so should not be taken too seriously. Demand I crease assumes that demand is perfectly elastic, which it isnt for ant real world case - price of shoes dropping 100x would not result in demand for shoes going up by same amount. In fact many demands are totally inelastic, I.e. food consumption does not change much, because people have to eat the same amount of calories. Secondly the price of a good is made up of more than its base resource, it's people's time, arketing, opportunity cost etc. So a 2x increase in resource efficiency of shoes manufacturing does not result in shoe price dropping 2x.
    - tpxl 7y ago
      I'm sorry, I was not trying to imply that it always happens that way, just that it (paradoxically) sometimes does and it has a name. I agree with what you wrote.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  > the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. That’s an extraordinary claim to me, especially given population growth, and I would need some rigorous evidence to believe it. Cars are bigger, homes are bigger, people live further apart, and people travel more. How can the sheer mass not be more simply because of the mass of all the extra fuel?
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    If its measured in pure mass, I would assume construction, concrete and coal consumption to have biggest effects. iPhones don't weigh much.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Quite a bit has happened since the 1930s other than iPhones. Such as population increase of 2.5x. And the interstate highway system. The more I think about it, the crazier the claim is.
  - eru 7y ago
    Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) for a start. I remembered reading about a comparison with 1930 as the peak. The Wikipedia article just mentions: > Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country's population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. If you follow the references, or Google some more, you can find more.
buzzkillington 7y ago
Flat out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States The US is today consuming less energy than it was in 1970.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Your linked Wikipedia article suggests that we may have shifted some of our energy usage to other countries (e.g. by making use of manufacturing done in another country). Edit: Perhaps the actual total energy usage is lower. However, the article doesn't give the impression that this is obviously true.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Yep. Physicists laugh at economists, but this is the same underlying structure that explains how even though everything we use is now more energy efficient, we use more energy overall.

eru 7y ago

What time in the past are you talking about? Funny enough, the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. Btw, your observation sounds much less surprising when you say 'transistors got cheaper since the 1970, yet we are spending more in total on transistors than ever'.

tpxl 7y ago
This is generally called Jevons paradox: When you make something more efficient, demand rises because it is more efficient, which in the end leads to using more of the base resource (but getting a lot more for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox#
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Not true at all, like all paradoxes its loosely defined and not quantified, so should not be taken too seriously. Demand I crease assumes that demand is perfectly elastic, which it isnt for ant real world case - price of shoes dropping 100x would not result in demand for shoes going up by same amount. In fact many demands are totally inelastic, I.e. food consumption does not change much, because people have to eat the same amount of calories. Secondly the price of a good is made up of more than its base resource, it's people's time, arketing, opportunity cost etc. So a 2x increase in resource efficiency of shoes manufacturing does not result in shoe price dropping 2x.
  - tpxl 7y ago
    I'm sorry, I was not trying to imply that it always happens that way, just that it (paradoxically) sometimes does and it has a name. I agree with what you wrote.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
> the total amount of physical stuff churning through the US economy has declined since the 1930s (or so?) just in terms of sheer mass. That’s an extraordinary claim to me, especially given population growth, and I would need some rigorous evidence to believe it. Cars are bigger, homes are bigger, people live further apart, and people travel more. How can the sheer mass not be more simply because of the mass of all the extra fuel?
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  If its measured in pure mass, I would assume construction, concrete and coal consumption to have biggest effects. iPhones don't weigh much.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Quite a bit has happened since the 1930s other than iPhones. Such as population increase of 2.5x. And the interstate highway system. The more I think about it, the crazier the claim is.
- eru 7y ago
  Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) for a start. I remembered reading about a comparison with 1930 as the peak. The Wikipedia article just mentions: > Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country's population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. If you follow the references, or Google some more, you can find more.

buzzkillington 7y ago

Flat out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States The US is today consuming less energy than it was in 1970.

dwaltrip 7y ago
Your linked Wikipedia article suggests that we may have shifted some of our energy usage to other countries (e.g. by making use of manufacturing done in another country). Edit: Perhaps the actual total energy usage is lower. However, the article doesn't give the impression that this is obviously true.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]