3 ms·

Economic growth is nearly exponential. With a title like "Why we are unlikely to _ever_ leave the solar system" I can see why people disagreed.

arethuza 15y ago
That makes me wonder about the Fermi Paradox - if economic growth is nearly exponential then presumably there should probably be a large number of civilisations that have been undergoing exponentional economic and technical growth for a long long time. So where are they? After all, if you believe that economic growth will definitely get us to the stars one day why hasn't someone/something else got there/here first?
- salemh 15y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-... Then theorize on the older civilizations which we have little record outside of temples of engineering which can baffle the mind, and, perhaps, at the apex of planet-lift off, a Caldera blows. Just a thought.
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  Selection bias may be the only reason we are still around. Or we just got here way before the rest of the party started.
tokenadult 15y ago
The key word about economics in your comment, for the reasoning by Charles Stross (the author of the article submitted to open the other thread), is "nearly." I used to read a lot of science fiction about interstellar travel when I was a kid, so I understand why HN readers suspend disbelief about interstellar travel, but economic growth at any rate is not going to answer the arguments of Stross (himself an experienced author of science fiction) about the absolute resources needed to send a group of human beings off on a voyage to another star, uphill for millions of expensive miles. As Thomas Sowell has commented, the first principle of economics is scarcity. And the first principle of politics (or of science fiction fandom) is to ignore the first principle of economics.
- 3pt14159 15y ago
  Just 200 years ago the richest king in the land would not have been able to afford 5000 horsepower. Now any man can, at least for a day or two. When people talk about the energy costs of getting a man or group of men to the nearest star I always think to myself, "doesn't this seem petty?" Indeed it does. Time, sure. Let's assume that the group would need to be in a boring spaceship for 50 years, but energy? No. We'll be able to convert 1 cubic meter into energy with little hassle, so let's forget about energy; let alone the possibility of ftl travel.

arethuza 15y ago

That makes me wonder about the Fermi Paradox - if economic growth is nearly exponential then presumably there should probably be a large number of civilisations that have been undergoing exponentional economic and technical growth for a long long time. So where are they? After all, if you believe that economic growth will definitely get us to the stars one day why hasn't someone/something else got there/here first?

salemh 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-... Then theorize on the older civilizations which we have little record outside of temples of engineering which can baffle the mind, and, perhaps, at the apex of planet-lift off, a Caldera blows. Just a thought.
3pt14159 15y ago
Selection bias may be the only reason we are still around. Or we just got here way before the rest of the party started.

tokenadult 15y ago

The key word about economics in your comment, for the reasoning by Charles Stross (the author of the article submitted to open the other thread), is "nearly." I used to read a lot of science fiction about interstellar travel when I was a kid, so I understand why HN readers suspend disbelief about interstellar travel, but economic growth at any rate is not going to answer the arguments of Stross (himself an experienced author of science fiction) about the absolute resources needed to send a group of human beings off on a voyage to another star, uphill for millions of expensive miles. As Thomas Sowell has commented, the first principle of economics is scarcity. And the first principle of politics (or of science fiction fandom) is to ignore the first principle of economics.

3pt14159 15y ago
Just 200 years ago the richest king in the land would not have been able to afford 5000 horsepower. Now any man can, at least for a day or two. When people talk about the energy costs of getting a man or group of men to the nearest star I always think to myself, "doesn't this seem petty?" Indeed it does. Time, sure. Let's assume that the group would need to be in a boring spaceship for 50 years, but energy? No. We'll be able to convert 1 cubic meter into energy with little hassle, so let's forget about energy; let alone the possibility of ftl travel.