4 ms·

As a physicist I find this to be a trite argument. You can easily get to 'finite' simply by arguing that the number of digits required to represent a number can

by scythe 5y ago

As a physicist I find this to be a trite argument. You can easily get to 'finite' simply by arguing that the number of digits required to represent a number cannot exceed the number of atoms in the Universe. That's a ridiculously loose bound, but it's still finite. The practical question is will our lives be recognizable to someone alive today when we do hit a ceiling? The average person 100 years ago could hardly imagine the way we live. If the limits come in some unimaginable future, what good does it do to worry about it now? There are plenty of problems that we can foresee in the near to medium term. The finitude of the Earth is not yet an issue.

jbay808 5y ago
It might be because you're a physicist that you find the argument tiring! You already understand and accept the underlying assumptions. I think it's meant to be applied when someone really stands their philosophical ground on exponential growth continuing forever.
mewse 5y ago
> The average person 100 years ago could hardly imagine the way we live. Serendipitously, Karel Capek's "R.U.R.", the book which popularised the concepts both of robots and of androids, was first published in 1921, 100 years ago this year. I dunno. I think people from 100 years ago could likely imagine our current lifestyle just fine. I mean, some of them are still alive, even, and many were involved in making our current lifestyle.
cryptonector 5y ago
> The practical question is will our lives be recognizable to someone alive today when we do hit a ceiling? Ask a Malthusian. They see war, famine, disaster. The utter hopelessness of being a Malthusian, or having to hope for a culling or something.
- imtringued 5y ago
  There is no need for any of that. It's only when humans fail to self regulate that nature has to step in.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    Malthusians are everywhere.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's not the finitude of the Earth, it's the finitude and stability of a certain mode of organisation of the Earth. We're not going to run out of atoms. We're definitely on course to running out of stability in our current configuration.

by scythe 5y ago

jbay808 5y ago

It might be because you're a physicist that you find the argument tiring! You already understand and accept the underlying assumptions. I think it's meant to be applied when someone really stands their philosophical ground on exponential growth continuing forever.

mewse 5y ago

> The average person 100 years ago could hardly imagine the way we live. Serendipitously, Karel Capek's "R.U.R.", the book which popularised the concepts both of robots and of androids, was first published in 1921, 100 years ago this year. I dunno. I think people from 100 years ago could likely imagine our current lifestyle just fine. I mean, some of them are still alive, even, and many were involved in making our current lifestyle.

cryptonector 5y ago

> The practical question is will our lives be recognizable to someone alive today when we do hit a ceiling? Ask a Malthusian. They see war, famine, disaster. The utter hopelessness of being a Malthusian, or having to hope for a culling or something.

imtringued 5y ago
There is no need for any of that. It's only when humans fail to self regulate that nature has to step in.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  Malthusians are everywhere.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

It's not the finitude of the Earth, it's the finitude and stability of a certain mode of organisation of the Earth. We're not going to run out of atoms. We're definitely on course to running out of stability in our current configuration.