5 ms·

>However an economic system that is predicated on constant growth will necessarily fail at some point in the future because physics. Nonsense. And the audacity

>However an economic system that is predicated on constant growth will necessarily fail at some point in the future because physics. Nonsense. And the audacity to add "because physics" at the end. Newton himself proved this wrong. 1+ 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125.... Is this sequence constant growing? Yes. Is this sequence infinitely increasing? Yes. Does this sum up to a finite value? Also yes!

iggldiggl 4y ago
Cute counterexample, I'll grant you that, but the parent posts were – if implicitly – talking abound unbounded growth. Bounded growth on the other hand might mathematically indeed continue for an infinite length of time, but for all practical purposes can most certainly be rounded down to zero past a certain point.
DemocracyFTW2 4y ago
You are right and I am glad I didn't write 'because Maths'. The sum you're quoting from is monotonically growing but at an ever shrinking clip. However, the series does not describe the kind of growth that our economy seemingly needs and our politicians like to promise, nor does it AFAICS describe the OP's idea of continued population growth given his recommendation to shun shrinking populations with fertility below replacement rate; theirs is a constant or in the midterm increasing growth and notwithstanding [minority opinions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww) claiming that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... equals -1/12 such a series cannot have a finite sum, hence is physically unfeasible to represent.
orwin 4y ago
But that's not our growth. Our system suppose constant exponential growth. And to use your maths: 1% + 0.5% + 0.25% + 0.125%.... Is this sequence constant growing? Yes. Is this sequence infinitely increasing? Yes. Does this sum up to a finite value? _Sadly no_
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  I'd have to brush up on my math but even that feels bounded. Per cent is just division by 100, you take it out as a common divisor and you still arrive at the same sum. Unless you mean something like 1 * 1.01 * 1.02 * 1.03..... Which is indeed unbounded.

iggldiggl 4y ago

Cute counterexample, I'll grant you that, but the parent posts were – if implicitly – talking abound unbounded growth. Bounded growth on the other hand might mathematically indeed continue for an infinite length of time, but for all practical purposes can most certainly be rounded down to zero past a certain point.

DemocracyFTW2 4y ago

You are right and I am glad I didn't write 'because Maths'. The sum you're quoting from is monotonically growing but at an ever shrinking clip. However, the series does not describe the kind of growth that our economy seemingly needs and our politicians like to promise, nor does it AFAICS describe the OP's idea of continued population growth given his recommendation to shun shrinking populations with fertility below replacement rate; theirs is a constant or in the midterm increasing growth and notwithstanding [minority opinions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww) claiming that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... equals -1/12 such a series cannot have a finite sum, hence is physically unfeasible to represent.

orwin 4y ago

But that's not our growth. Our system suppose constant exponential growth. And to use your maths: 1% + 0.5% + 0.25% + 0.125%.... Is this sequence constant growing? Yes. Is this sequence infinitely increasing? Yes. Does this sum up to a finite value? _Sadly no_

cuteboy19 4y ago
I'd have to brush up on my math but even that feels bounded. Per cent is just division by 100, you take it out as a common divisor and you still arrive at the same sum. Unless you mean something like 1 * 1.01 * 1.02 * 1.03..... Which is indeed unbounded.