"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." The argument is that these calculations are not relevant. That's the entire poi

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." The argument is that these calculations are not relevant. That's the entire point of the original article that we are all posting under. Further, it's not even clear what calculation you want others to make. What's the question? Malthus made a correct calculation. But it was irrelevant, and led to a bad correction. There's a difference between what we calculate and what we want to know. And when that "calculation" is limited to simple napkin math, it's even less likely to be relevant or interesting to the real world. Taking simple physical limits and deriving calculations about the world has yet to offer insight about technological change. Perhaps one could do that to calculate a potential limit to Moore's law, by saying here's a minimum size of a transistor, and we are reaching thay. But what about going to more layers than we currently put in transistors, instead of simply shrinking the transistor size to increase transistor count in an IC?