3 ms·
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:
by 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 agoMaybe 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.