4 ms·

Yes. Some while back, I found myself sitting next to an accomplished economics professor at a dinner event. Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economi

Yes. Some while back, I found myself sitting next to an accomplished economics professor at a dinner event. Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economic growth cannot continue indefinitely,” just to see where things would go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical constraints—not for the first time, but here it was up-close and personal. Though my memory is not keen enough to recount our conversation verbatim, I thought I would at least try to capture the key points and convey the essence of the tennis match—with some entertainment value thrown in. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

toto444 5y ago
If you read the blog post shared by hprotagonist (which is very good), make sure to read the comments which give a more nunanced view of the questino.
DicIfTEx 5y ago
Kate Raworth's book Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist[0] addresses this area well and contains a lot of similar stories. [0] https://www.kateraworth.com/ https://www.kateraworth.com/
rory 5y ago
This argument doesn't seem to be particularly strong, and to be honest the overconfidence comes off a bit embarrassing for physicists. It basically amounts to: 1) Energy use must keep increasing for utility to increase. This is empirically false-- energy consumption in the developed world has already been decreasing for some time. And population growth is below replacement rate in much of it, so even if per capita energy use were to increase again, total energy use may not. 2) The physicist rejects utility from new technology (Not me. I suspect many would prefer the smell of real flowers—complete with aphids and sneezing;). How is this different from the Amish? Some will reject all new technologies, others will embrace the ones they like and gain new utility from them.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  Maybe economists should rebuild their theories from the ground up, starting with concepts like 'conservation of mass' and 'conservation of energy'? More precise definition of terms is also desirable. For example, plant growth results in accumulation of biomass, and plants have been steadily growing (absorbing CO2 and water to create biomass) for a long time, so 'indefinite growth' in this sense possible. However, if economic growth means 'accumulation of biomass', well, in a full-grown forest, the net biomass is constant, a dead tree is replaced by a new tree. Here we have a healthy dynamic system with zero net growth - how would economists model that?
  - rory 5y ago
    > More precise definition of terms is also desirable Which terms aren't well defined? > how would economists model that? Sounds kind of like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy Except that definitionally, economists try to model the interaction of sentient beings (generally humans), not plants.
yyyk 5y ago
This link is so extremely unconvincing I just upped my percentage of belief in unlimited growth (which was 0% before, but now I'm not so sure). If that's best he can give then he has no good argument against it. I should write something more substantive, but some things are so filled with bad arguments I don't know if I should bother.
- 14 5y ago
  I thought the argument was good and convincing. Perhaps you could find the time to write something more substantive because I and others, as seen in comments, agree he has some good arguments. I would be interested in seeing what parts you don’t agree with.
  - EricE 5y ago
    Other than completely discounting innovation as a thing? How about starting with that one?
    - 14 5y ago
      I think the point was you can’t innovate past the laws of physics not that people can’t innovate.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    Everything is bad? Sorry, since you asked I'll explain. He's basically using an infinite timescale on one end (going as far as 1,400 years in the future) but bans quite a few futuristic technologies on the other end. This is super tilted. He wants to not talk about stuff like going to other planets. Sure, I can accept that in the next century. But in 400 years? 1,400 years? Please. When the timescales are so long, you're not merely doubting technological progress - you're either assuming collapse before it happens or making an impossibility theorem. The first isn't supported by the post (his mechanism is very slow), there's no reason for the second. I think the burden of proof is on the other end here, since we can come close to generation ships right now*, it's just absurdly uneconomic, nobody wants it and there's nowhere to send them to. Just a little research on suspension, and a slowwww generation ship is doable. Third, Virtual Reality is not what he should be looking at. He should be wondering if we can 'upload' our minds like some futurists suggest. Or if strong AI can be created and change everything. I don't usually bother with the 'Rationalists', but they do have some arguments that we can seriously expect AI in this century. And on the timescales he's using, he's making a very unsupported impossibility theorem. But lets accept all his arguments. He assumes people will be asked nicely to go to Virtual Reality. More likely, if resources are such a problem, costs of existing in the real world will increase so much they won't have any choice [were he an economist perhaps he'd have thought of this?]. This isn't nice, but it is compatible with the definition of growth he uses up to the last few paragraphs, which merely talks about GDP, not human happiness! * Scifi plot - future Earth sends out generation ships to limit overpopulation. The secret - they have nowhere to send them to. So the destinations are black holes and other disaster areas, the expeditions are meant to die so the plant can reduce energy expenditure thus increasing GDP. The colonists will never know since they're cryogenically suspended. One of the doomed generation ships somehow chances upon one of the rare relativistic black hole solutions that allow them to go back in time... To before they were sent. Now they go back and try to get even. But they can't change history, and they have few resources, so how will they achieve their revenge?

toto444 5y ago

If you read the blog post shared by hprotagonist (which is very good), make sure to read the comments which give a more nunanced view of the questino.

DicIfTEx 5y ago

Kate Raworth's book Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist[0] addresses this area well and contains a lot of similar stories. [0] https://www.kateraworth.com/ https://www.kateraworth.com/

rory 5y ago

This argument doesn't seem to be particularly strong, and to be honest the overconfidence comes off a bit embarrassing for physicists. It basically amounts to: 1) Energy use must keep increasing for utility to increase. This is empirically false-- energy consumption in the developed world has already been decreasing for some time. And population growth is below replacement rate in much of it, so even if per capita energy use were to increase again, total energy use may not. 2) The physicist rejects utility from new technology (Not me. I suspect many would prefer the smell of real flowers—complete with aphids and sneezing;). How is this different from the Amish? Some will reject all new technologies, others will embrace the ones they like and gain new utility from them.

photochemsyn 5y ago
Maybe economists should rebuild their theories from the ground up, starting with concepts like 'conservation of mass' and 'conservation of energy'? More precise definition of terms is also desirable. For example, plant growth results in accumulation of biomass, and plants have been steadily growing (absorbing CO2 and water to create biomass) for a long time, so 'indefinite growth' in this sense possible. However, if economic growth means 'accumulation of biomass', well, in a full-grown forest, the net biomass is constant, a dead tree is replaced by a new tree. Here we have a healthy dynamic system with zero net growth - how would economists model that?
- rory 5y ago
  > More precise definition of terms is also desirable Which terms aren't well defined? > how would economists model that? Sounds kind of like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy Except that definitionally, economists try to model the interaction of sentient beings (generally humans), not plants.

yyyk 5y ago

This link is so extremely unconvincing I just upped my percentage of belief in unlimited growth (which was 0% before, but now I'm not so sure). If that's best he can give then he has no good argument against it. I should write something more substantive, but some things are so filled with bad arguments I don't know if I should bother.

14 5y ago
I thought the argument was good and convincing. Perhaps you could find the time to write something more substantive because I and others, as seen in comments, agree he has some good arguments. I would be interested in seeing what parts you don’t agree with.
- EricE 5y ago
  Other than completely discounting innovation as a thing? How about starting with that one?
  - 14 5y ago
    I think the point was you can’t innovate past the laws of physics not that people can’t innovate.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Everything is bad? Sorry, since you asked I'll explain. He's basically using an infinite timescale on one end (going as far as 1,400 years in the future) but bans quite a few futuristic technologies on the other end. This is super tilted. He wants to not talk about stuff like going to other planets. Sure, I can accept that in the next century. But in 400 years? 1,400 years? Please. When the timescales are so long, you're not merely doubting technological progress - you're either assuming collapse before it happens or making an impossibility theorem. The first isn't supported by the post (his mechanism is very slow), there's no reason for the second. I think the burden of proof is on the other end here, since we can come close to generation ships right now*, it's just absurdly uneconomic, nobody wants it and there's nowhere to send them to. Just a little research on suspension, and a slowwww generation ship is doable. Third, Virtual Reality is not what he should be looking at. He should be wondering if we can 'upload' our minds like some futurists suggest. Or if strong AI can be created and change everything. I don't usually bother with the 'Rationalists', but they do have some arguments that we can seriously expect AI in this century. And on the timescales he's using, he's making a very unsupported impossibility theorem. But lets accept all his arguments. He assumes people will be asked nicely to go to Virtual Reality. More likely, if resources are such a problem, costs of existing in the real world will increase so much they won't have any choice [were he an economist perhaps he'd have thought of this?]. This isn't nice, but it is compatible with the definition of growth he uses up to the last few paragraphs, which merely talks about GDP, not human happiness! * Scifi plot - future Earth sends out generation ships to limit overpopulation. The secret - they have nowhere to send them to. So the destinations are black holes and other disaster areas, the expeditions are meant to die so the plant can reduce energy expenditure thus increasing GDP. The colonists will never know since they're cryogenically suspended. One of the doomed generation ships somehow chances upon one of the rare relativistic black hole solutions that allow them to go back in time... To before they were sent. Now they go back and try to get even. But they can't change history, and they have few resources, so how will they achieve their revenge?