4 ms·

> I find it mind boggling that people can still believe so deeply that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. I find it mind boggling that people stil

by 1996 6y ago

> I find it mind boggling that people can still believe so deeply that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet. I find it mind boggling that people still can't believe infinite growth is possible when all it takes is combinatorial explosion from the outputs becoming inputs in new products (CPU -> computers -> AWS -> SAAS -> some app, etc) > We'll be having trouble producing enough food to feed people. The 1970s called and they want the Club of Rome limit to growth/Malthusianism back

edoceo 6y ago
This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I learned just a few seconds ago - interesting click-hole starts (as always) on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome It's worth two minutes of reading
- 1996 6y ago
  > This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I'm used to downvotes here since facts are not popular (bitcoin ...) The "infinite growth in a finite world" is a traditional line from the school of thought this Club of Rome started. However, as you correctly found out in the wikipedia article, it's dubious at best "the forecasts of the world's future are very sensitive to a few unduly pessimistic key assumptions. The Sussex scientists also claim that the Meadows et al. methods, data, and predictions are faulty, that their world models (and their Malthusian bias) do not accurately reflect reality" I gave a very simple example (combinatorial explosion) that shows how the whole thing is wrong, and why (here, attacking a key assumption) - but there are many many more holes. It's not really redeemable, after having been proved wrong more than wrong - just like Malthusianism actually. > It's worth two minutes of reading Indeed, in just 2 minutes you can notice even more holes - I just pointed to the most glaring one for people used to algorithm. Hopefully you will not fall prey to ideological arguments based on a castle of cards with such a flimsy base
nathanasmith 6y ago
Every time I read the Hacker News comments for any article to do with economics or trading I'm painfully reminded of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect[0]. The latest javascript front end framework sure but fates help anybody who takes investing advice from this place. Reminds me of the infamous r/buttcoin subreddit. On the front page there you can see when the sub was created. From then until now while they were busy being permabears bitcoin's price has exploded over 1000x. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
sudosysgen 6y ago
Sure you can. It's pretty simple. Growth in resource consumption and energy usage in the past 80 years tracked extremely closely to economic growth. Combinatorial explosion in production possibilities does not mean anything close to combinatorial expansion in possibilities for growth. It's an increase, but nowhere near factorial. Here's an example. Imagine that you are a barber shop. What advantage does 10 years of computing advances give you? You might be able to save 15 hours in accounting time and lower appointment friction by 20% over phone calls. The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. The truth is that every frontier has a point of diminishing returns. Your point is that you believe that we can iterate on the value - resources front indefinitely. Well, empirical data just disagrees with you. We're at 2% annual growth on average and slowing down, despite increases in consumption, and even less than that when correcting for population growth. Yes, Malthiusianism is wrong. You can't equate Malthiusianism with the belief that infinite growth is impossible, that's just a total non-sequitur. We might still see a lot of economic growth left in the future, but it's clear there will be plateaus and it's clear that we are nearing one.
- 1996 6y ago
  > Growth in resource consumption and energy usage in the past 80 years tracked extremely closely to economic growth Growth in power consumption of laptops, is falling. Growth in total material consumption for say cars will fall too, as less maintenance is required for electrical engine vs internal combustion. Many people believe we've reached peak oil, as demand will decrease. So it's not so clear. > The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. If you are focusing on one business, there's little change between barbering now and not just 10 years ago, but even 200 years ago. But small changes are enough - even taking appointments online frees the barber time. So there's some growth. > The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. However, you are missing the 99% of businesses that are impossible with 1800 technology. This cause growth, and much more than the little growth seen in barbering. > The truth is that every frontier has a point of diminishing returns Diminishing returns are perfectly compatible with asymptotic behavior. > We might still see a lot of economic growth left in the future, but it's clear there will be plateaus and it's clear that we are nearing one You don't understand (or you do, but don't want to see it): as long as f(yu) >= f(yt) for yu>yt, there's infinite growth. It may be less and less, if it's asymptotically going to 0, but it will never reach g=0. Plateaus are fine - just like recessions. Yes, the economy is not strictly increasing with a time granularity that too small. But group years by pack of 20, do a moving average and you'll see a strictly increasing function. g>0 which means infinite growth is possible, even if g may not be to your liking. Perfect? No. Good enough? Yes!

by 1996 6y ago

edoceo 6y ago

This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I learned just a few seconds ago - interesting click-hole starts (as always) on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome It's worth two minutes of reading

1996 6y ago
> This cat is catching downvotes but that Club of Rome thing and (Limits of Growth, which is a paper this group published) is interesting economic stuff I'm used to downvotes here since facts are not popular (bitcoin ...) The "infinite growth in a finite world" is a traditional line from the school of thought this Club of Rome started. However, as you correctly found out in the wikipedia article, it's dubious at best "the forecasts of the world's future are very sensitive to a few unduly pessimistic key assumptions. The Sussex scientists also claim that the Meadows et al. methods, data, and predictions are faulty, that their world models (and their Malthusian bias) do not accurately reflect reality" I gave a very simple example (combinatorial explosion) that shows how the whole thing is wrong, and why (here, attacking a key assumption) - but there are many many more holes. It's not really redeemable, after having been proved wrong more than wrong - just like Malthusianism actually. > It's worth two minutes of reading Indeed, in just 2 minutes you can notice even more holes - I just pointed to the most glaring one for people used to algorithm. Hopefully you will not fall prey to ideological arguments based on a castle of cards with such a flimsy base

nathanasmith 6y ago

Every time I read the Hacker News comments for any article to do with economics or trading I'm painfully reminded of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect[0]. The latest javascript front end framework sure but fates help anybody who takes investing advice from this place. Reminds me of the infamous r/buttcoin subreddit. On the front page there you can see when the sub was created. From then until now while they were busy being permabears bitcoin's price has exploded over 1000x. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnesiaEffect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...

sudosysgen 6y ago

Sure you can. It's pretty simple. Growth in resource consumption and energy usage in the past 80 years tracked extremely closely to economic growth. Combinatorial explosion in production possibilities does not mean anything close to combinatorial expansion in possibilities for growth. It's an increase, but nowhere near factorial. Here's an example. Imagine that you are a barber shop. What advantage does 10 years of computing advances give you? You might be able to save 15 hours in accounting time and lower appointment friction by 20% over phone calls. The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. The truth is that every frontier has a point of diminishing returns. Your point is that you believe that we can iterate on the value - resources front indefinitely. Well, empirical data just disagrees with you. We're at 2% annual growth on average and slowing down, despite increases in consumption, and even less than that when correcting for population growth. Yes, Malthiusianism is wrong. You can't equate Malthiusianism with the belief that infinite growth is impossible, that's just a total non-sequitur. We might still see a lot of economic growth left in the future, but it's clear there will be plateaus and it's clear that we are nearing one.

1996 6y ago
> Growth in resource consumption and energy usage in the past 80 years tracked extremely closely to economic growth Growth in power consumption of laptops, is falling. Growth in total material consumption for say cars will fall too, as less maintenance is required for electrical engine vs internal combustion. Many people believe we've reached peak oil, as demand will decrease. So it's not so clear. > The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. If you are focusing on one business, there's little change between barbering now and not just 10 years ago, but even 200 years ago. But small changes are enough - even taking appointments online frees the barber time. So there's some growth. > The expansion in the productive possibilities linked to tech was combinatorial, but even in a period of ten years it barely improved your business. However, you are missing the 99% of businesses that are impossible with 1800 technology. This cause growth, and much more than the little growth seen in barbering. > The truth is that every frontier has a point of diminishing returns Diminishing returns are perfectly compatible with asymptotic behavior. > We might still see a lot of economic growth left in the future, but it's clear there will be plateaus and it's clear that we are nearing one You don't understand (or you do, but don't want to see it): as long as f(yu) >= f(yt) for yu>yt, there's infinite growth. It may be less and less, if it's asymptotically going to 0, but it will never reach g=0. Plateaus are fine - just like recessions. Yes, the economy is not strictly increasing with a time granularity that too small. But group years by pack of 20, do a moving average and you'll see a strictly increasing function. g>0 which means infinite growth is possible, even if g may not be to your liking. Perfect? No. Good enough? Yes!