7 ms·

If you measure ecological degradation as an output in those terms, then progress is proceeding swimmingly.

by tspike 5y ago

dredmorbius 5y ago
I'm reading that as a sarcastic response. In that reading, true, and a major consideration. It could also mean that apparent progress (efficiency gains) are not. And there are multiple inputs or consequences of farming (both modern and ancient) which sharply increase costs: - Use of nonrenewable fossil fuels whose true costs of creation (the 5-million to 1 ratio of rates of formation to consumption https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C...) are unaccounted. - Contamination of sinks at rates exceeding their clearing rates (atmospheric CO2, local soil salination, downstream nitrogen and phosphorus polution leading to algael blooms and dead zones, downstream animal wastes with both chemical and bioactive consequences). - Stripping of soils at rates ~100x that of their formation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 - Degradation of natural biodiversity and ecosystems at rates exceeding their ability to recover and regenerate. All that said, the basic notion of technological progress remains: can more be achieved with less. What you're rising is a critically important point, but it remains one of making an accurate assessment of inputs and outputs. Within it however is an identification of an Achilles heel of markets: they don't assess long-term or diffuse costs, and hence systematically and persistently bias toward underaccounting for these costs and their consequences. Markets also fail to assess long-term and diffuse benefits, which is to say that their inherent focus is on the short term, direct, and manifestly evident. My direct intent in my initial answer was to define what is meant within the economic orthodoxy by "progress" or "efficiency".

If you measure ecological degradation as an output in those terms, then progress is proceeding swimmingly.

by tspike 5y ago

If you measure ecological degradation as an output in those terms, then progress is proceeding swimmingly.

I'm reading that as a sarcastic response. In that reading, true, and a major consideration. It could also mean that apparent progress (efficiency gains) are not. And there are multiple inputs or consequences of farming (both modern and ancient) which sharply increase costs: - Use of nonrenewable fossil fuels whose true costs of creation (the 5-million to 1 ratio of rates of formation to consumption https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C...) are unaccounted. - Contamination of sinks at rates exceeding their clearing rates (atmospheric CO2, local soil salination, downstream nitrogen and phosphorus polution leading to algael blooms and dead zones, downstream animal wastes with both chemical and bioactive consequences). - Stripping of soils at rates ~100x that of their formation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 - Degradation of natural biodiversity and ecosystems at rates exceeding their ability to recover and regenerate. All that said, the basic notion of technological progress remains: can more be achieved with less. What you're rising is a critically important point, but it remains one of making an accurate assessment of inputs and outputs. Within it however is an identification of an Achilles heel of markets: they don't assess long-term or diffuse costs, and hence systematically and persistently bias toward underaccounting for these costs and their consequences. Markets also fail to assess long-term and diffuse benefits, which is to say that their inherent focus is on the short term, direct, and manifestly evident. My direct intent in my initial answer was to define what is meant within the economic orthodoxy by "progress" or "efficiency".