4 ms·

Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same li

Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same limited resources? It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger. It ultimately needs to reach an equilibrium where a developed nation lifestyle for the entire world population would only consume natural resources at the rate that they can be replenished.

ravi-delia 4y ago
> Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same limited resources? This certainly isn't impossible! You could construct scenarios where exactly that happens. But in real life, developed nations have an absolute advantage in producing just about everything. Some things are cheaper in developing nations, but only because of the opportunity costs (as in, steel would be cheaper in America, but the difference is even bigger in planes or whatever so that's what gets made there). If tomorrow the entire world was developed there would obviously be huge issues, but a continuous change would work out just fine. Now that's not to say that there wouldn't be a higher fraction of people working in jobs which today in developed nations are seen as lesser. Some tasks are simply most efficient with a human at the helm. But if you wander around the rust belt, you'll find plenty of people that wish it made economic sense to employ them in manufacturing or mining. The shift wouldn't be a bad one. > It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger. That is absolutely true, but people overestimate the effect of resource use compared to pollution and the like. We will probably never run out of oil, metal, or any other nonrenewable resource. There's plenty there, and productivity growth will likely ensure that it is cost effective to extract pretty much indefinitely. Land is another story, as we're using a greater fraction of it than most other resources, but it's not by enough to make a huge difference. The issue is pollution and other public bads. We can feed the world on very little land, but all the nitrogen runoff could cause other issues. We could go centuries without ever hitting peak oil, but dumping that much carbon into the atmosphere is problematic for obvious reasons. But that's no reason to fear production specifically! With greater productivity, we'd find it far easier to roll out nuclear worldwide. And while wasteful food production wouldn't go away without government regulation (or worldwide shifts in consumer preferences I won't hold my breath for), we can make those regulations and it's a small price to pay to increase the global standard of living.

ravi-delia 4y ago

> Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same limited resources? This certainly isn't impossible! You could construct scenarios where exactly that happens. But in real life, developed nations have an absolute advantage in producing just about everything. Some things are cheaper in developing nations, but only because of the opportunity costs (as in, steel would be cheaper in America, but the difference is even bigger in planes or whatever so that's what gets made there). If tomorrow the entire world was developed there would obviously be huge issues, but a continuous change would work out just fine. Now that's not to say that there wouldn't be a higher fraction of people working in jobs which today in developed nations are seen as lesser. Some tasks are simply most efficient with a human at the helm. But if you wander around the rust belt, you'll find plenty of people that wish it made economic sense to employ them in manufacturing or mining. The shift wouldn't be a bad one. > It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger. That is absolutely true, but people overestimate the effect of resource use compared to pollution and the like. We will probably never run out of oil, metal, or any other nonrenewable resource. There's plenty there, and productivity growth will likely ensure that it is cost effective to extract pretty much indefinitely. Land is another story, as we're using a greater fraction of it than most other resources, but it's not by enough to make a huge difference. The issue is pollution and other public bads. We can feed the world on very little land, but all the nitrogen runoff could cause other issues. We could go centuries without ever hitting peak oil, but dumping that much carbon into the atmosphere is problematic for obvious reasons. But that's no reason to fear production specifically! With greater productivity, we'd find it far easier to roll out nuclear worldwide. And while wasteful food production wouldn't go away without government regulation (or worldwide shifts in consumer preferences I won't hold my breath for), we can make those regulations and it's a small price to pay to increase the global standard of living.