7 ms·

Growth is possible by increasing outputs from the same level of inputs. Certain types of growth are unsustainable, yet other types of growth, e.g. productivity

by sumy23 4y ago

Growth is possible by increasing outputs from the same level of inputs. Certain types of growth are unsustainable, yet other types of growth, e.g. productivity growth, is definitely sustainable.

darkerside 4y ago
In the long run, most J curves are actually S curves
- sophacles 4y ago
  I question the "most" here, rather than "all". Examples of J curves that aren't S curves?
  - sumy23 4y ago
    2^x
  - DeathArrow 4y ago
    >Examples of J curves that aren't S curves? Reindeer population growth in Alaska.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Wait a few decades and it will probably plateau at, if not shrink from, a maximum.
    - dron57 4y ago
      That's absolutely an S-curve. Any animal population will eventually run out of resources.
  - tlholaday 4y ago
    Dark Energy astrophysics.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      You seem confident an "ultraviolet catastrophe"-like scenario won't play out there, too.
toss1 4y ago
It seems that productivity growth is still necessarily limited in the end by physics. Remove the unnecessary actions to produce X, and you're down to the bare minimum set of actions. Now speed up those actions and you'll eventually reach some minimum time requirement, and the output of X is a function of Required_Actions * Required_Time and how many Producing_Units you have and available time. Seems it'd be asymptotic
- sumy23 4y ago
  Everything is limited by physics. But I think the limit is not close to where we are right now. Consider a smart phone. Physically, what is it? Some silicon, glass, a lithium-ion battery, and some other trace metals. If you were to have the raw inputs in front of you, it would be a small pile of dust. Yet, with just that small amount of material, a person can get access to a near infinite amount of information and entertainment. And smartphones can run software, which allows the phone to be updated for near-zero marginal cost. And this is only something invented in the last few decades. There are so many amazing things being created around us all the time. I don't know how you can look at this situation and think "yup, we've reached the end of human ingenuity."
  - toss1 4y ago
    I don't think at all that we're near the limit of human ingenuity. The quibble I had was with the "sustainable", which in that context, I read as indefinitely/infinitely sustainable (and it seems other responders have similar issues). I agree that there should be a lot more human ingenuity ahead of us than behind us (assuming that those seeking power over others, e.g., megalomaniacs and autocrats, don't first destroy us). That said, productivity of any one thing is certainly never an x^y sort of curve but eventually flattens and becomes asymptotic, if not declining.
    - lazide 4y ago
      That’s a bit like saying ‘we can only make horses so efficient’, which is true, but that’s why we end up coming up with automobiles, airplanes, etc. As long as we have free brain cycles focused on solving problems or understanding something we do not yet understand, we’ll continue to do better.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Growth should probably be more precisely defined in the vast majority of cases to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. In terms of systems, the quantity that grows or shrinks should be concrete (i.e. not a rate, certainly). For example, human population. Let's say the birthrate in a population is growing, so a naive conclusion would be that the population, a concrete object, must also be growing. This is not true if the deathrate is growing by the same amount. Now, this is the standard kind of thing you see in a intro to differential equations course: a river feeds a lake at rate X, and another river drains a lake at rate Y, and so is the lake growing or shrinking? Ooops, we neglected to take evaporation into account, so we get the wrong answer. Economists are among the worst offenders in this misuse of concepts. Take 'productivity growth' - this is actually growth in the rate at which product is produced, right? If productivity is flat and market demand is flat and human population is flat, well, that means everyone is getting what they need, if say the product is cell phones, for example. If everyone has a cell phone, and cell phones are replaced every five years, then what is productivity growth? Maybe you can make the cell phone manufacturing line more efficient, by recycling the materials from old cell phones into new cell phones, or by automation etc. Nevertheless, the desired rate of cell phone production is fixed, and everyone has a cell phone. Of course the market should be broken up between different producers to encourage competition, but here growth in production of a better cell phone with higher demand is counterbalanced by shrinkage in market share by another producer, as net demand is flat. Unfortunately, if the cell phone makers form a cartel, and raise their prices in unison, some economist will call that 'economic growth' based on the fact that they're extracting more money from a market with fixed demand, which is just ludicrous - but that's modern neoclassical economics for you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by sumy23 4y ago

Growth is possible by increasing outputs from the same level of inputs. Certain types of growth are unsustainable, yet other types of growth, e.g. productivity growth, is definitely sustainable.

darkerside 4y ago

In the long run, most J curves are actually S curves

sophacles 4y ago
I question the "most" here, rather than "all". Examples of J curves that aren't S curves?
- sumy23 4y ago
  2^x
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  >Examples of J curves that aren't S curves? Reindeer population growth in Alaska.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Wait a few decades and it will probably plateau at, if not shrink from, a maximum.
  - dron57 4y ago
    That's absolutely an S-curve. Any animal population will eventually run out of resources.
- tlholaday 4y ago
  Dark Energy astrophysics.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    You seem confident an "ultraviolet catastrophe"-like scenario won't play out there, too.

toss1 4y ago

It seems that productivity growth is still necessarily limited in the end by physics. Remove the unnecessary actions to produce X, and you're down to the bare minimum set of actions. Now speed up those actions and you'll eventually reach some minimum time requirement, and the output of X is a function of Required_Actions * Required_Time and how many Producing_Units you have and available time. Seems it'd be asymptotic

sumy23 4y ago
Everything is limited by physics. But I think the limit is not close to where we are right now. Consider a smart phone. Physically, what is it? Some silicon, glass, a lithium-ion battery, and some other trace metals. If you were to have the raw inputs in front of you, it would be a small pile of dust. Yet, with just that small amount of material, a person can get access to a near infinite amount of information and entertainment. And smartphones can run software, which allows the phone to be updated for near-zero marginal cost. And this is only something invented in the last few decades. There are so many amazing things being created around us all the time. I don't know how you can look at this situation and think "yup, we've reached the end of human ingenuity."
- toss1 4y ago
  I don't think at all that we're near the limit of human ingenuity. The quibble I had was with the "sustainable", which in that context, I read as indefinitely/infinitely sustainable (and it seems other responders have similar issues). I agree that there should be a lot more human ingenuity ahead of us than behind us (assuming that those seeking power over others, e.g., megalomaniacs and autocrats, don't first destroy us). That said, productivity of any one thing is certainly never an x^y sort of curve but eventually flattens and becomes asymptotic, if not declining.
  - lazide 4y ago
    That’s a bit like saying ‘we can only make horses so efficient’, which is true, but that’s why we end up coming up with automobiles, airplanes, etc. As long as we have free brain cycles focused on solving problems or understanding something we do not yet understand, we’ll continue to do better.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Growth should probably be more precisely defined in the vast majority of cases to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. In terms of systems, the quantity that grows or shrinks should be concrete (i.e. not a rate, certainly). For example, human population. Let's say the birthrate in a population is growing, so a naive conclusion would be that the population, a concrete object, must also be growing. This is not true if the deathrate is growing by the same amount. Now, this is the standard kind of thing you see in a intro to differential equations course: a river feeds a lake at rate X, and another river drains a lake at rate Y, and so is the lake growing or shrinking? Ooops, we neglected to take evaporation into account, so we get the wrong answer. Economists are among the worst offenders in this misuse of concepts. Take 'productivity growth' - this is actually growth in the rate at which product is produced, right? If productivity is flat and market demand is flat and human population is flat, well, that means everyone is getting what they need, if say the product is cell phones, for example. If everyone has a cell phone, and cell phones are replaced every five years, then what is productivity growth? Maybe you can make the cell phone manufacturing line more efficient, by recycling the materials from old cell phones into new cell phones, or by automation etc. Nevertheless, the desired rate of cell phone production is fixed, and everyone has a cell phone. Of course the market should be broken up between different producers to encourage competition, but here growth in production of a better cell phone with higher demand is counterbalanced by shrinkage in market share by another producer, as net demand is flat. Unfortunately, if the cell phone makers form a cartel, and raise their prices in unison, some economist will call that 'economic growth' based on the fact that they're extracting more money from a market with fixed demand, which is just ludicrous - but that's modern neoclassical economics for you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]