3 ms·

Yes, there are ofc different byproducts (knowledge, health, leisure, fulfillment of needs, …) but, at the end of the chain, a dollar spent is ultimately convert

by panta 5y ago

Yes, there are ofc different byproducts (knowledge, health, leisure, fulfillment of needs, …) but, at the end of the chain, a dollar spent is ultimately converted into energy/resource consumption, no?

tlocke 5y ago
You're right that energy ultimately dissipates as heat, but the important thing is what the energy achieves in between hitting the earth as sunlight and then heading off into space as infrared. If you put a solar panel in place to turn the light into electricity and then use that electricity to write a Python plugin for Flake8 https://github.com/tlocke/flake8-alphabetize https://github.com/tlocke/flake8-alphabetize then maybe you've contributed something to the economy :-)
hyperman1 5y ago
I've always seen it more as a measure of human attention. A dollar gives you acces to someone else's time. Energy and resources are force multipliers for that human, so making more energy available increases what someone can do. There is also an organisational aspect in there: A better organized group can do more with resources and reach more resources for the same amount of human time. A human's time is more valuable if the human has a more centralized location an an organisation. I look at psychologists, hookers, priests as people who sell basically their attention for emotional needs. Not much energy or resources in those transactions, but very lucrative. At the other end of the spectrum is the sun, dumping tons of energy on us, mostly worthless until humans organize the power.
PeterisP 5y ago
Not really. It used to be that economic growth is strongly coupled to energy and resource consumption, that meeting more needs was done through people getting more stuff. But this has decoupled now for some decades already (in the developed world - in the developing world there's still a hug lag of "stuff backlog") as consumption and its growth shifts towards various intangible goods and services where people get increasingly more desires met in better ways (i.e. economic growth) without an increase in electricity and metal and plastics required for that. More people than before getting a car inherently requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources as car manufacturing needs to grow; but more people getting access to a Netflix series does not; if people use larger cars then it requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources, but iPhone 12 mini is much better than the original first iPhone and meets more needs while requiring about the same energy and resources.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  Right, that is the confusion that I was trying to highlight (although the general point about greater efficiency is quite correct). With a product like Netflix, is that the result of greater productivity? Did Netflix invent some kind of new food that meant humans who made the films or created the website could work twenty hour days for the same wage? The innovation was cutting out other parts of the distribution chain, not more efficient energy usage. It isn't about more stuff either but more inputs. And there has been a significant increase in energy capture (I was talking about a far larger timescale, but this is over the 20th century) but there has been a larger increase in inputs (and a small increase in efficiency, although one that continues to compound), that is why climate change is occurring. Intangibles are neither here nor there because humans still expend calories (real solar energy) to produce those intangibles. To say this another way, the value of an intangible product is (usually) closely related to the productivity of other parts of the economy. A film in Mauritanian street market is not worth as much a film on the Apple Store in the US. That elides the point that growth either comes from growth in inputs, or growth in efficiency of input usage (the increase in energy capture is, I think, efficiency...but it is usually not what people are thinking of when they think about efficiency).

by panta 5y ago

tlocke 5y ago

You're right that energy ultimately dissipates as heat, but the important thing is what the energy achieves in between hitting the earth as sunlight and then heading off into space as infrared. If you put a solar panel in place to turn the light into electricity and then use that electricity to write a Python plugin for Flake8 https://github.com/tlocke/flake8-alphabetize https://github.com/tlocke/flake8-alphabetize then maybe you've contributed something to the economy :-)

hyperman1 5y ago

I've always seen it more as a measure of human attention. A dollar gives you acces to someone else's time. Energy and resources are force multipliers for that human, so making more energy available increases what someone can do. There is also an organisational aspect in there: A better organized group can do more with resources and reach more resources for the same amount of human time. A human's time is more valuable if the human has a more centralized location an an organisation. I look at psychologists, hookers, priests as people who sell basically their attention for emotional needs. Not much energy or resources in those transactions, but very lucrative. At the other end of the spectrum is the sun, dumping tons of energy on us, mostly worthless until humans organize the power.

PeterisP 5y ago

Not really. It used to be that economic growth is strongly coupled to energy and resource consumption, that meeting more needs was done through people getting more stuff. But this has decoupled now for some decades already (in the developed world - in the developing world there's still a hug lag of "stuff backlog") as consumption and its growth shifts towards various intangible goods and services where people get increasingly more desires met in better ways (i.e. economic growth) without an increase in electricity and metal and plastics required for that. More people than before getting a car inherently requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources as car manufacturing needs to grow; but more people getting access to a Netflix series does not; if people use larger cars then it requires an increase in consumption of energy and resources, but iPhone 12 mini is much better than the original first iPhone and meets more needs while requiring about the same energy and resources.

hogFeast 5y ago
Right, that is the confusion that I was trying to highlight (although the general point about greater efficiency is quite correct). With a product like Netflix, is that the result of greater productivity? Did Netflix invent some kind of new food that meant humans who made the films or created the website could work twenty hour days for the same wage? The innovation was cutting out other parts of the distribution chain, not more efficient energy usage. It isn't about more stuff either but more inputs. And there has been a significant increase in energy capture (I was talking about a far larger timescale, but this is over the 20th century) but there has been a larger increase in inputs (and a small increase in efficiency, although one that continues to compound), that is why climate change is occurring. Intangibles are neither here nor there because humans still expend calories (real solar energy) to produce those intangibles. To say this another way, the value of an intangible product is (usually) closely related to the productivity of other parts of the economy. A film in Mauritanian street market is not worth as much a film on the Apple Store in the US. That elides the point that growth either comes from growth in inputs, or growth in efficiency of input usage (the increase in energy capture is, I think, efficiency...but it is usually not what people are thinking of when they think about efficiency).