3 ms·

I know I'm not going to change your mind because that would require changing your whole worldview, but I would push back on the notion that this is a "techno-li

I know I'm not going to change your mind because that would require changing your whole worldview, but I would push back on the notion that this is a "techno-libertarian religion". It certainly has experts that endorse the view. A whole field of them. In fact, it has its own term in the discipline of economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics)

paulryanrogers 5y ago
How likely is it that phenomena will cause a net improvement with population and per-person consumption increases? Jevons Paradox also comes into play.
- worik 5y ago
  Does Jevons Paradox extend indefinitely? What I mean is, e.g., when the cost of energy drops people's energy bills in general do not go down, the have warmer homes. That has been known for a while. But is it still true if everybody can keep their houses at 21 degrees permanently? At thatr point does a reduction in energy costs reduce their bills or do they find something else to spend the energy on?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Judging by the lifestyles of billionaires I don't think human appetites should be underestimated. Especially on a planet of billions of people.
    - Earw0rm 5y ago
      Billionaires tbf are a self-selecting sample of people who made it past $1m, $10m and $100m, and still decided to keep going. As a % of the population, I don't know how many have those traits - 10%? 1%? - but with a population also numbered in billions, "enough to totally screw the planet" is a reasonable guess.
      - worik 5y ago
        Yes. They need treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
kergonath 5y ago
You can be an expert and a techno-libertarian ideologist, though. Particularly in economics, which is a field rife with unverifiable dogma. Besides, considering that we are living on a finite world, we don’t need to merely decouple economy from materials, because any use at all will at some point exhaust available resources. Sure, we can say “fuck everything, I’m going to keep going on as usual because in 100 years I’ll be dead and they’ll have that one wonderful technological panacea that will change everything (be it Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, or anything else)”. I don’t know how to call that attitude except for “techno-libertarian dogmatism”.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  We're living in a finite world, but we're going to have finite growth.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

How likely is it that phenomena will cause a net improvement with population and per-person consumption increases? Jevons Paradox also comes into play.

worik 5y ago
Does Jevons Paradox extend indefinitely? What I mean is, e.g., when the cost of energy drops people's energy bills in general do not go down, the have warmer homes. That has been known for a while. But is it still true if everybody can keep their houses at 21 degrees permanently? At thatr point does a reduction in energy costs reduce their bills or do they find something else to spend the energy on?
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Judging by the lifestyles of billionaires I don't think human appetites should be underestimated. Especially on a planet of billions of people.
  - Earw0rm 5y ago
    Billionaires tbf are a self-selecting sample of people who made it past $1m, $10m and $100m, and still decided to keep going. As a % of the population, I don't know how many have those traits - 10%? 1%? - but with a population also numbered in billions, "enough to totally screw the planet" is a reasonable guess.
    - worik 5y ago
      Yes. They need treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

kergonath 5y ago

You can be an expert and a techno-libertarian ideologist, though. Particularly in economics, which is a field rife with unverifiable dogma. Besides, considering that we are living on a finite world, we don’t need to merely decouple economy from materials, because any use at all will at some point exhaust available resources. Sure, we can say “fuck everything, I’m going to keep going on as usual because in 100 years I’ll be dead and they’ll have that one wonderful technological panacea that will change everything (be it Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, or anything else)”. I don’t know how to call that attitude except for “techno-libertarian dogmatism”.

missedthecue 5y ago
We're living in a finite world, but we're going to have finite growth.