5 ms·
Hypothetically, what would the net change to the GDP year over year be if we killed all people over a threshold age when they were diagnosed with a terminal dis
by throwaway5752 6y ago
Hypothetically, what would the net change to the GDP year over year be if we killed all people over a threshold age when they were diagnosed with a terminal disease?
My point is not that this would be a good idea, it's that GDP growth is not a good measure for a society across the board.
Maybe GDP growth would be higher if we could simply dump toxic waste in water supplies, and the threat of lawyers/class action suits that helps prevent that behavior hurts economic growth.
- gota 6y agoI think there are a thousand nails and you hit one of the most outstanding ones in the head. GDP is as much a metric of wealth as it is of the speed with which we consume natural resources. If we account for externalities witha reasonable "weight" most economic activity must be operating close to or at an absolute loss
- AnHonestComment 6y agoGDP growth is a questionable metric even for wealth. For example, if two housewives join the workforce by cleaning each other’s now unattended houses, GDP shows a large increase even though the situation is (arugably) a net loss for everyone involved.
- limaoscarjuliet 6y agoThe difference is they have to pay tax on what they earn, so they are technically contributing to the society.
- epicureanideal 6y agoBut where would that money come from? If they both clean the other person's house for $20, where does $5 in taxes come from? (Answer: from the other income earner.). So the "contribution to society" doesn't just magically appear when we make this a commercial transaction.
- limaoscarjuliet 6y agoYup, they just decided to give away some money to the society (via govt taxes). Not saying this is good, just saying there is a difference.
- AnHonestComment 6y agoYes, both families face an increased tax burden. However, there’s no new income: each family is paying $20 and making $15 for net -$5. Increasing costs for decreased benefit (eg, neither family is cared for during transit times) is why I referred to it as a net loss.
- aeternum 6y agoConsider an alternate viewpoint: The universe is destroying natural resources both via growing blackholes as well as by entire galaxies moving beyond our accessible light cone due to expansion. Thus we are wasting an unfathomable amount of natural resources by delaying our transition to a space-faring civilization. And world GDP is currently the best measure we have of human technological progress.
- WhompingWindows 6y agoMost of the unfathomable amount of resources being lost isn't even within traveling distance, right? And there's a massive bounty to be found in the asteroid belt here in our solar system, we could make trillions of dollars of "wealth" by transporting rare metals back here, surely? The main reason for delays on this front seems to be a lack of long-term thinking, as well as a general disinterest in advancing space technology.
- darepublic 6y agoIf we can develop warp drive those light cones won't be constraining
- aeternum 6y agoThey may not be as constraining but we will still be constrained by available energy. Bending spacetime requires huge amounts of energy. So maybe instead of a light-cone it would be a warp-energy cone.
- rellekio 6y agohttps://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a7213/patent-trolls-how-bad-is-the-problem/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a7213/pa...
- SquishyPanda23 6y ago> Hypothetically, what would the net change to the GDP year over year be if we killed all people over a threshold age when they were diagnosed with a terminal disease? That depends on how profitable it is to provide the treatment for terminal illnesses.
- aminukka 6y agoBuhari he is die today and tomorrow