3 ms·

Can it continue? Sure. Theoretically we could all be hooked up to computers that slow our perception of reality and allow us to create 2x the digital commoditie

Can it continue? Sure. Theoretically we could all be hooked up to computers that slow our perception of reality and allow us to create 2x the digital commodities we could normally in our lifetime. This would technically count as "growth". But I think the actual question is flawed to begin with. Why do we need infinite growth? Do we really need 3% economic growth per year ad infinitum? Why is that our metric for optimization? Why don't choose something else to optimize on like human happiness or fulfillment or freedom?

smaudet 4y ago
Because the world is a ponzii scheme, where we don't pay people for their time but for the going market rate. If you keep a stable population and pay people based upon life expectations * skill, no one would need a retirement account. But those with pull want to sit on their hands and do nothing, and throw around large sums of money, hence the ponzi scheme.
mgh2 4y ago
Because it is tied to population growth and productivity: The optimal number of children is 2.1, for offspring to replace parents [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fertility-rate https://www.britannica.com/topic/fertility-rate When there is no population growth, no inflation or economic growth: [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSJis2K6B8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSJis2K6B8Q You might think that worldwide and US has <2.1%, but technology amplifies productivity, so it is not a 1-1 ratio [3] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#:~:text=Population%20in%20the%20world%20is,81%20million%20people%20per%20year https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#:~:text=Popu.... [4] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
- softcactus 4y ago
  This still doesn't really address the why
  - pmohun 4y ago
    It’s a good question. The reason that GDP growth is so important is because it raises the standard of living for those who aren’t yet born. If you accept the premise that lives in the future matter just as much as those today, then the vast majority of human lives are yet to be born and therefore deserve consideration about what to do __today__. Even small changes in GDP growth (e.g. 1-2% per year) has dramatic compounding effects over a multi decade timeframe. For a great book on this, I recommend Tyler Cowen’s Stubborn Attachments which discusses the ethics of economic growth: https://press.stripe.com/stubborn-attachments https://press.stripe.com/stubborn-attachments
    - softcactus 4y ago
      I'm not saying GDP shouldn't grow in developing nations. But how and why do we expect GDP to grow infinitely in developed nations? If we all have food, clothing, housing, medicine, leisure, and fulfillment then why would we need GDP to keep going up?
      - mgh2 4y ago
        Ask the FIRE people: work/productivity has purpose https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20792026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20792026
    - walleeee 4y ago
      > it raises the standard of living for those who aren’t yet born assuming by standard of living we mean quality of life: to accept this one must ignore or rationalize the ways our pursuit of GDP growth is making the planet a less hospitable place for the yet unborn if instead we mean material expectations, then yes, you're right, but part of the problem is our rapidly growing accustomed to lifestyles that can't be sustained under the present matrix of social and physical technology

smaudet 4y ago

Because the world is a ponzii scheme, where we don't pay people for their time but for the going market rate. If you keep a stable population and pay people based upon life expectations * skill, no one would need a retirement account. But those with pull want to sit on their hands and do nothing, and throw around large sums of money, hence the ponzi scheme.

mgh2 4y ago

Because it is tied to population growth and productivity: The optimal number of children is 2.1, for offspring to replace parents [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fertility-rate https://www.britannica.com/topic/fertility-rate When there is no population growth, no inflation or economic growth: [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSJis2K6B8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSJis2K6B8Q You might think that worldwide and US has <2.1%, but technology amplifies productivity, so it is not a 1-1 ratio [3] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#:~:text=Population%20in%20the%20world%20is,81%20million%20people%20per%20year https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#:~:text=Popu.... [4] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...

softcactus 4y ago
This still doesn't really address the why
- pmohun 4y ago
  It’s a good question. The reason that GDP growth is so important is because it raises the standard of living for those who aren’t yet born. If you accept the premise that lives in the future matter just as much as those today, then the vast majority of human lives are yet to be born and therefore deserve consideration about what to do __today__. Even small changes in GDP growth (e.g. 1-2% per year) has dramatic compounding effects over a multi decade timeframe. For a great book on this, I recommend Tyler Cowen’s Stubborn Attachments which discusses the ethics of economic growth: https://press.stripe.com/stubborn-attachments https://press.stripe.com/stubborn-attachments
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I'm not saying GDP shouldn't grow in developing nations. But how and why do we expect GDP to grow infinitely in developed nations? If we all have food, clothing, housing, medicine, leisure, and fulfillment then why would we need GDP to keep going up?
    - mgh2 4y ago
      Ask the FIRE people: work/productivity has purpose https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20792026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20792026
  - walleeee 4y ago
    > it raises the standard of living for those who aren’t yet born assuming by standard of living we mean quality of life: to accept this one must ignore or rationalize the ways our pursuit of GDP growth is making the planet a less hospitable place for the yet unborn if instead we mean material expectations, then yes, you're right, but part of the problem is our rapidly growing accustomed to lifestyles that can't be sustained under the present matrix of social and physical technology