6 ms·

Why is it that infinite growth is always assumed possible and desirable? Can anybody enlighten me?

warlog 6y ago
Rent seeking requires infinite growth. It is assumed, so the game can go on. ...until it can't. But by then the bonuses have been paid and the losses engineered to be socialized.
choeger 6y ago
Think about what growth means: You do something today that you did yesterday and you do it better now than you did then. And generally, you do it better than the person that did it before you. You either do it faster, or better, or cheaper. Whatever it is you do, the learning effect is a human constant. To say there is no growth is to say humanity does not learn anymore or that something prevents us from applying what we learnt.
ozim 6y ago
It is desirable because once we go into zero sum game, constrained growth, war is the only way to get more resources. With infinite growth you can make your own resources without someone else loosing their resources. There are still some resources that we are constrained with, like oil, but with science coming up with ways to stop using that resource and having reusable energy sources we can stop wars in places where oil is present. Then if I can have $2 tomorrow for my $1 invested today because I see there is infinite growth I am willing to put my money into more ventures. If there would be no growth I would stick to my $1 and spend it only on necessities we would stagnate and would not have money to invest in things like renewable energy - which in turn leads to scenario with scarce resources. Remember that not all people want to live peaceful life having their own farm feeding themselves, there is a lot of human predators taking advantage of others. So to have peaceful society we need growth or at least perceived growth so a lot of people don't have to take someone else piece of pie.
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  That's a good point, thank you!
- Guthur 6y ago
  Individual subsistence farming has rarely if ever been a tractable solution, we have nearly always lived and worked as a group and those groups have nearly always required a hierarchy, even a single family is nearly always a hierarchy and in subsistence life style even more so I'd suspect.
- newdude116 6y ago
  Your post is wrong on so many levels. Take this as a start: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...
  - ozim 6y ago
    I don't discuss if it is feasible in reality or propose it as a solution to all world issues. I simply replied to the question "why it is assumed possible and desirable?".
- unishark 6y ago
  Technology doesn't make resources, it uses resources to produce wealth. Improving technology improves the efficiency with which this can be done. Stopping growth in the technological improvements doesn't mean we go back to zero, we simply get stuck at the current level of efficiency. Also the premise is unrealistic anyway. Technological improvements will still happen incrementally even with zero funding for research. Especially as big changes occur and needs arrive.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It is desirable because once we go into zero sum game, constrained growth, war is the only way to get more resources. I think that the question about it being "desired" didn't only ask "why is it viewed as desired?" (that's obvious, who wouldn't just like infinite growth if it was possible and had no side-effects?), but also implied "why is it viewed as desired AND feasible?". So the above is mostly an "argument from wish" (the "wishful thinking" logical fallacy). Just because the alternative is war [1] doesn't mean the other alternative is guaranteed. [1] which is also taken for granted instead of proven, how about the alternative is sustainable living and more equality and cooperation
jariel 6y ago
The desirability is obvious. But why anyone believes 'Science and Knowledge' can expand linearly with the effort is beyond me. 150 years ago, 'Scientists' were 'Curious Gentlemen' doing experiments in their homes. It's a lot harder now, and the low-hanging fruit has been had.
- choeger 6y ago
  Well, it depends on how you measure it. If you measure by effort, gravitational waves are way more difficult to detect then to predict, no? So shouldn't the confirmation of their existence count for many times their prediction?
- f6v 6y ago
  Well, maybe if we come up with some magical “neuralink” the progress will become exponential.
coldtea 6y ago
It's part of the inherited "millenialism" of the modern world, the idea that progress towards some Star Trek future where everybody gets a free pony is inevitable, the human potential is limitless, resource and physical limits don't matter because "ingenuity" (and "we always found a way in the past", as if the handful of historical examples --which was non-industrial from the dawn of time until 3 centuries ago, and had very limited needs and very limited impact potential -- is a infalible predictor and pertutual guarantee for future outcomes). The US took this idea and run with it, and also has an ingrained notion of a "manifest destiny" to lead the rest 96% of the world that way. Basically what you get when a culture is founded by persecuted religious nuts :-)
- joe_91 6y ago
  So you think that we've just been lucky so far and that the breakthroughs are going to dry up soon?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    No, I think luck has little to do with it, but same for any kind of "guarantee" from nature that we anything close to unlimited potential, we're "bound to" colonise the universe, and so on... The historical transitions are too few to make any general observation from (as in "we'll always make it" just because we succesfully transitioned 2-3 times). Then there are the concepts and realities of limited resources (minerals, food production restrictions, etc.), externalities (e.g. pollution), low hanging fruit, diminishing returns (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law), and so on. Lots of other considerations, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature... (even at the moment, on top of shitty developments like climate change and pollution, we already have enough nuclear bombs to take civilization back 1000 years, ways to develop biological attacks, and other such niceties).
- f6v 6y ago
  I’d rather do that than indulge in mindless hedonism.
f6v 6y ago
We can’t expect it in a long term. However, our understanding of the world around us is rather primitive. There’s so much room for growth in both fundamental and applied sciences that the growth potential is “infinite”.

Rent seeking requires infinite growth. It is assumed, so the game can go on. ...until it can't. But by then the bonuses have been paid and the losses engineered to be socialized.

choeger 6y ago

Think about what growth means: You do something today that you did yesterday and you do it better now than you did then. And generally, you do it better than the person that did it before you. You either do it faster, or better, or cheaper. Whatever it is you do, the learning effect is a human constant. To say there is no growth is to say humanity does not learn anymore or that something prevents us from applying what we learnt.

ozim 6y ago

It is desirable because once we go into zero sum game, constrained growth, war is the only way to get more resources. With infinite growth you can make your own resources without someone else loosing their resources. There are still some resources that we are constrained with, like oil, but with science coming up with ways to stop using that resource and having reusable energy sources we can stop wars in places where oil is present. Then if I can have $2 tomorrow for my $1 invested today because I see there is infinite growth I am willing to put my money into more ventures. If there would be no growth I would stick to my $1 and spend it only on necessities we would stagnate and would not have money to invest in things like renewable energy - which in turn leads to scenario with scarce resources. Remember that not all people want to live peaceful life having their own farm feeding themselves, there is a lot of human predators taking advantage of others. So to have peaceful society we need growth or at least perceived growth so a lot of people don't have to take someone else piece of pie.

blackbear_ 6y ago
That's a good point, thank you!
Guthur 6y ago
Individual subsistence farming has rarely if ever been a tractable solution, we have nearly always lived and worked as a group and those groups have nearly always required a hierarchy, even a single family is nearly always a hierarchy and in subsistence life style even more so I'd suspect.
newdude116 6y ago
Your post is wrong on so many levels. Take this as a start: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-state-economy-except-at-a-very-basic-level/ https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/02/21/there-is-no-steady-sta...
- ozim 6y ago
  I don't discuss if it is feasible in reality or propose it as a solution to all world issues. I simply replied to the question "why it is assumed possible and desirable?".
unishark 6y ago
Technology doesn't make resources, it uses resources to produce wealth. Improving technology improves the efficiency with which this can be done. Stopping growth in the technological improvements doesn't mean we go back to zero, we simply get stuck at the current level of efficiency. Also the premise is unrealistic anyway. Technological improvements will still happen incrementally even with zero funding for research. Especially as big changes occur and needs arrive.
coldtea 6y ago
>It is desirable because once we go into zero sum game, constrained growth, war is the only way to get more resources. I think that the question about it being "desired" didn't only ask "why is it viewed as desired?" (that's obvious, who wouldn't just like infinite growth if it was possible and had no side-effects?), but also implied "why is it viewed as desired AND feasible?". So the above is mostly an "argument from wish" (the "wishful thinking" logical fallacy). Just because the alternative is war [1] doesn't mean the other alternative is guaranteed. [1] which is also taken for granted instead of proven, how about the alternative is sustainable living and more equality and cooperation

jariel 6y ago

The desirability is obvious. But why anyone believes 'Science and Knowledge' can expand linearly with the effort is beyond me. 150 years ago, 'Scientists' were 'Curious Gentlemen' doing experiments in their homes. It's a lot harder now, and the low-hanging fruit has been had.

choeger 6y ago
Well, it depends on how you measure it. If you measure by effort, gravitational waves are way more difficult to detect then to predict, no? So shouldn't the confirmation of their existence count for many times their prediction?
f6v 6y ago
Well, maybe if we come up with some magical “neuralink” the progress will become exponential.

coldtea 6y ago

It's part of the inherited "millenialism" of the modern world, the idea that progress towards some Star Trek future where everybody gets a free pony is inevitable, the human potential is limitless, resource and physical limits don't matter because "ingenuity" (and "we always found a way in the past", as if the handful of historical examples --which was non-industrial from the dawn of time until 3 centuries ago, and had very limited needs and very limited impact potential -- is a infalible predictor and pertutual guarantee for future outcomes). The US took this idea and run with it, and also has an ingrained notion of a "manifest destiny" to lead the rest 96% of the world that way. Basically what you get when a culture is founded by persecuted religious nuts :-)

joe_91 6y ago
So you think that we've just been lucky so far and that the breakthroughs are going to dry up soon?
- coldtea 6y ago
  No, I think luck has little to do with it, but same for any kind of "guarantee" from nature that we anything close to unlimited potential, we're "bound to" colonise the universe, and so on... The historical transitions are too few to make any general observation from (as in "we'll always make it" just because we succesfully transitioned 2-3 times). Then there are the concepts and realities of limited resources (minerals, food production restrictions, etc.), externalities (e.g. pollution), low hanging fruit, diminishing returns (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law), and so on. Lots of other considerations, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature... (even at the moment, on top of shitty developments like climate change and pollution, we already have enough nuclear bombs to take civilization back 1000 years, ways to develop biological attacks, and other such niceties).
f6v 6y ago
I’d rather do that than indulge in mindless hedonism.

f6v 6y ago

We can’t expect it in a long term. However, our understanding of the world around us is rather primitive. There’s so much room for growth in both fundamental and applied sciences that the growth potential is “infinite”.