3 ms·

I don't think economists use terms like 'growth' in a very consistent manner. For example: trees are constantly growing in a forest, and trees are also constan

I don't think economists use terms like 'growth' in a very consistent manner. For example: trees are constantly growing in a forest, and trees are also constantly dying, but the overall population size (number of trees in a forest) remains generally stable, in the absence of major changes in climate and animal predation of trees (such as clear-cutting forests). A lot of uses of growth in economics appear to be related to growth of rates, not growth of something like mass. For example, carbon flows through grasslands at a greater rate than it does in forests; the carbon in a grassland was in the atmosphere at most a few years ago while a tree in a forest can be several hundred years old. The rate at which money flows through an economy (less misers, basically, mean higher transactions) is linked to economic growth. However, growth in terms of growth of the number of buildings in a city and numbers of humans in a city, that's absolutely tied to the amount of arable land each human needs for food production, so obviously that's not an open-ended system, and in particular, if there's not enough water then the land isn't arable. Again, if a city of fixed size improves the average quality of life for its inhabitants, then that's a kind of economic growth, isn't it? Even if resource use (in terms of conservation of mass and energy) is fixed, you can still have economic improvements within that steady-state system, can't you?

mongol 4y ago
I also don't understand how they take into account innovation. A carrot was a carrot 1000 years ago, and is a carrot today. While the production of carrots certainly have increased manyfold between then and now, we also have innovations whose value we can't quantify in numbers but certainly are indicators of growth. What is the value of toothpaste compared with no toothpaste, and how much growth did the invention of toothpaste account for? While no number can be reliably given, it should account for some growth. If we halt growth, we halt progress.
- TheCowboy 4y ago
  It's not really as bad as you think within the field of economics. If you were to major in economics, you would be taught that there is no single or multiple perfect measures of growth or innovation. It's important to have multiple metrics, understand their pros and cons. It's also important to have active research advancing the current state of understanding and not believe everything is settled theory.
- krallja 4y ago
  Carrots are a bad example, as they have also improved dramatically via innovation: cultivation and breeding. A carrot like those grown a millennium ago are barely recognizable compared to the beautiful orange giants we can all get at the grocery store for a few cents apiece. Heck, the entire species was only domesticated 1100 years ago. https://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html https://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html
- mrob 4y ago
  >What is the value of toothpaste compared with no toothpaste As best I can tell, very little. It might have some value as a fluoride delivery system, but: "The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513809/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513809/ I haven't used toothpaste for about a decade. I find brushing with plain water to be highly effective, and I drink a lot of tea so I don't think I need any additional fluoride. I think the most underrated factor is toothbrush wear; a fresh toothbrush leaves my teeth feeling noticeably cleaner with the same effort compared to a worn toothbrush.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Who buys your carrots? Once you are capable of selling a carrot to every person on earth, how do you increase your sales? No matter how cheap and easy it may be to produce carrots, there’s a limit to how many may be sold (and its less than “to every person on earth”). And ever increasing money spent on carrots is what our growth economy is built upon. The analogy goes further, when you're technologically capable of producing carrots in the billions, where does the money go? Specifically, how much of it goes into the hands of people who don't own companies, and their investors (aka the 99% of the population)?
sfvisser 4y ago
> Even if resource use (in terms of conservation of mass and energy) is fixed, you can still have economic improvements within that steady-state system, can't you? Sure, technical innovations and efficiency improvements to get more for less is also economic growth. And therefore by definition not steady-state.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mongol 4y ago

I also don't understand how they take into account innovation. A carrot was a carrot 1000 years ago, and is a carrot today. While the production of carrots certainly have increased manyfold between then and now, we also have innovations whose value we can't quantify in numbers but certainly are indicators of growth. What is the value of toothpaste compared with no toothpaste, and how much growth did the invention of toothpaste account for? While no number can be reliably given, it should account for some growth. If we halt growth, we halt progress.

TheCowboy 4y ago
It's not really as bad as you think within the field of economics. If you were to major in economics, you would be taught that there is no single or multiple perfect measures of growth or innovation. It's important to have multiple metrics, understand their pros and cons. It's also important to have active research advancing the current state of understanding and not believe everything is settled theory.
krallja 4y ago
Carrots are a bad example, as they have also improved dramatically via innovation: cultivation and breeding. A carrot like those grown a millennium ago are barely recognizable compared to the beautiful orange giants we can all get at the grocery store for a few cents apiece. Heck, the entire species was only domesticated 1100 years ago. https://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html https://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html
mrob 4y ago
>What is the value of toothpaste compared with no toothpaste As best I can tell, very little. It might have some value as a fluoride delivery system, but: "The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513809/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27513809/ I haven't used toothpaste for about a decade. I find brushing with plain water to be highly effective, and I drink a lot of tea so I don't think I need any additional fluoride. I think the most underrated factor is toothbrush wear; a fresh toothbrush leaves my teeth feeling noticeably cleaner with the same effort compared to a worn toothbrush.
falcolas 4y ago
Who buys your carrots? Once you are capable of selling a carrot to every person on earth, how do you increase your sales? No matter how cheap and easy it may be to produce carrots, there’s a limit to how many may be sold (and its less than “to every person on earth”). And ever increasing money spent on carrots is what our growth economy is built upon. The analogy goes further, when you're technologically capable of producing carrots in the billions, where does the money go? Specifically, how much of it goes into the hands of people who don't own companies, and their investors (aka the 99% of the population)?

sfvisser 4y ago

> Even if resource use (in terms of conservation of mass and energy) is fixed, you can still have economic improvements within that steady-state system, can't you? Sure, technical innovations and efficiency improvements to get more for less is also economic growth. And therefore by definition not steady-state.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]