4 ms·
Sort of? It depends a lot on how you frame the question. To first-order, modern economics goes as the number of connections between nodes. There is quite a lot
by glimcat 15y ago
Sort of? It depends a lot on how you frame the question. To first-order, modern economics goes as the number of connections between nodes. There is quite a lot of potential growth between the current status quo and the maximized economic state for a population at planetary carrying capacity (whatever that is).
The things is, economies scale according to the sort of activities which are being conducted. Primitive agrarian economies are fairly linear. Modern economies are fairly exponential. There are many cases in between, and the degree of local self-sufficiency also varies greatly.
Can economic growth last? Well, there are ups and downs. Events can create setbacks. Geographic localities can experience recession while the global picture is one of growth, and the same is true in the time domain. The current types of economic activities can probably show a general global trend of growth for quite some time to come.
But in the long term, it is likely that a phase transition of some sort would occur, making the question rather moot.
tl;dr: The answer depends heavily on how you frame the question.
- nasmorn 15y agoThe article never claimed that status quo can't continue for some time. It showed quite clearly that this time is bound to between half a century and a few hundred at most. After that our economy ceases to function even though we would be enjoying incredible prosperity. tl;dr The party is going to end but you might die before it does.
- glimcat 15y agoResource scaling is likely to be a problem long before theoretical economic maximum anyway. The entire question is just an exercise to play with the math.