3 ms·
> Does this model include energy that continuously decays into higher entropy states? Nope, it doesn't. You're not wrong. You're just being pedantic. For all i
by malandrew 6y ago
> Does this model include energy that continuously decays into higher entropy states?
Nope, it doesn't. You're not wrong. You're just being pedantic. For all intents and purposes for the discussion we're having here this continuous decay into higher entropy states is a non-issue. Within the sphere of the humans involved in free exchange, it's not zero sum even if it is zero sum when you take into account the entirety of the physical world.
- neonological 6y agoI'm not being pedantic. I think it's reasonable to involve all humans effected by an exchange. If a corporation purchases water rights in an area from the government and suddenly deprives the poor farmers in the area from using the water to grow their food does this make the farmers a negligible part of the equation? In my opinion: No. You can create your box so that it only fits the participants of the transaction but that would be a fantasy. There are great real world zero sum costs to almost everything in an economy.
- malandrew 6y agoYour examples are pretty much strictly isolated to limited extractable natural resources. This is but a tiny sliver of all economic activity.
- neonological 6y agoNo. That’s just one example in response to your attempted boxing of all economic consequences into the “participants” of a transaction. The example falsifies your claim from ever being true. My claim is that all economic activity is tied to energy and that energy is limited and usage of said limited energy in one place prevents usage elsewhere. Try to find an example that falsifies my claim. You can’t.