4 ms·

Sadly he's still at it. To save people from subjecting themselves to all of his tortured logic, here's just a sample from the article you linked: > The upshot

Sadly he's still at it. To save people from subjecting themselves to all of his tortured logic, here's just a sample from the article you linked: > The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. Basically his conclusion is that at some point in the next 400 years, the predominant economic system on Earth will have to change in some way (and that economists are short-sighted for not believing this). The analysis also seems to completely miss how the global economy's energy intensity has been falling for 20 years, according Enerdata[0]: "Global energy intensity (total energy consumption per unit of GDP) ... historical trend (-1.5%/year on average between 2000 and 2019)" [0] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-intensity-gdp-data.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-inte...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
That's the entire point though. For economic growth to continue, the economy must completely decouple from all necessary resources. At that point all real commodities are not part of the economy which is growing so the thing with the commodities in it is the real economy which is static. The inevitability of the conclusion is ironclad. The only matter is which limiting resources necessitate moving to a steady state economy.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Speculating about what the "real economy" will look like in 400 years is as meaningless as asking what the most valuable website was 400 years ago (or 4 million years ago, if we're assuming progress is exponential).
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Again. The point is a reductio ad absurdum on exponential growth. Exponential growth in a static environment is impossible. This is provable. With that conclusion ironclad you no longer get to tapdance around the point. Which is that we must end reliance on growth. There are other much sooner limits. Thermal forcing becomes as important as GHG forcing within a century, for example. Similarly you can't assert light water reactors as a solution (including idiotic ideas like making depleted fuel permanently unavailable) because there is not enough uranium to maintain exponential growth for more tha 80 years or so at 3% burnup. Without exponentially increasing energy you don't get exponentially increasing resource extraction. 'The pie will grow exponentially fast forever so it doesn't matter that I'm stealing an exponentially larger share of it' is a lie. There are enough resources for everyone to thrive, we just have to stop giving them to liars as a reward for already having some.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > There are other much sooner limits. Yes, that's my point. Arguing about the economic problems of the 25th century is at best a toy exercise in sci-fi mathematics/physics, and at worst a dangerous distraction from solving real problems that exist today. > There are enough resources for everyone to thrive, we just have to stop giving them to liars as a reward for already having some. This I agree with 100%, and it would have made a much more productive topic for an article.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Then the article isn't for you. It's for the overwhelming majority of people who don't understand that "line go up will fix everything" is neither possible nor a solution even if it were.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        The people who believe "line go up will fix everything", need an article that doesn't give them false hope that the problems we face won't really become serious until after their lifetime.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The ocean not boiling isn't 'not serious'. Everything dies long before that point. If you don't start by eliminating 'line go up forever and big line means space magic will save us' then they tapdance around the same idiotic points as ever about how it's not zero sum and iphone means we all live like kings and then deflect any criticism with banal comments like > The analysis also seems to completely miss how the global economy's energy intensity has been falling for 20 years, according Enerdata[0]: "Global energy intensity (total energy consumption per unit of GDP) ... historical trend (-1.5%/year on average between 2000 and 2019)" We must end growth or physics will end it for us. And if we pick the latter option then the result is not going to be pleasant for anyone. We have about a century (roughly the time people have been trying to sound the alarm on climate change).
sidewndr46 4y ago
How is energy consumption per GDP measured? All the relevant currencies are inflationary in policy. 2020 proved you can grow the economy at any rate despite any circumstances so long as you are willing to accept out of control inflation.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

That's the entire point though. For economic growth to continue, the economy must completely decouple from all necessary resources. At that point all real commodities are not part of the economy which is growing so the thing with the commodities in it is the real economy which is static. The inevitability of the conclusion is ironclad. The only matter is which limiting resources necessitate moving to a steady state economy.

dane-pgp 4y ago
Speculating about what the "real economy" will look like in 400 years is as meaningless as asking what the most valuable website was 400 years ago (or 4 million years ago, if we're assuming progress is exponential).
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Again. The point is a reductio ad absurdum on exponential growth. Exponential growth in a static environment is impossible. This is provable. With that conclusion ironclad you no longer get to tapdance around the point. Which is that we must end reliance on growth. There are other much sooner limits. Thermal forcing becomes as important as GHG forcing within a century, for example. Similarly you can't assert light water reactors as a solution (including idiotic ideas like making depleted fuel permanently unavailable) because there is not enough uranium to maintain exponential growth for more tha 80 years or so at 3% burnup. Without exponentially increasing energy you don't get exponentially increasing resource extraction. 'The pie will grow exponentially fast forever so it doesn't matter that I'm stealing an exponentially larger share of it' is a lie. There are enough resources for everyone to thrive, we just have to stop giving them to liars as a reward for already having some.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > There are other much sooner limits. Yes, that's my point. Arguing about the economic problems of the 25th century is at best a toy exercise in sci-fi mathematics/physics, and at worst a dangerous distraction from solving real problems that exist today. > There are enough resources for everyone to thrive, we just have to stop giving them to liars as a reward for already having some. This I agree with 100%, and it would have made a much more productive topic for an article.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Then the article isn't for you. It's for the overwhelming majority of people who don't understand that "line go up will fix everything" is neither possible nor a solution even if it were.
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        The people who believe "line go up will fix everything", need an article that doesn't give them false hope that the problems we face won't really become serious until after their lifetime.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The ocean not boiling isn't 'not serious'. Everything dies long before that point. If you don't start by eliminating 'line go up forever and big line means space magic will save us' then they tapdance around the same idiotic points as ever about how it's not zero sum and iphone means we all live like kings and then deflect any criticism with banal comments like > The analysis also seems to completely miss how the global economy's energy intensity has been falling for 20 years, according Enerdata[0]: "Global energy intensity (total energy consumption per unit of GDP) ... historical trend (-1.5%/year on average between 2000 and 2019)" We must end growth or physics will end it for us. And if we pick the latter option then the result is not going to be pleasant for anyone. We have about a century (roughly the time people have been trying to sound the alarm on climate change).

sidewndr46 4y ago

How is energy consumption per GDP measured? All the relevant currencies are inflationary in policy. 2020 proved you can grow the economy at any rate despite any circumstances so long as you are willing to accept out of control inflation.