5 ms·

> Capitalism isn’t tied to growth it’s tied to efficiency That's a beautiful theory that doesn't match what we have put in application during the last century.

> Capitalism isn’t tied to growth it’s tied to efficiency That's a beautiful theory that doesn't match what we have put in application during the last century. In pratice, our systems assume growth, and in fact the planetary resource consumption has just gone up and up. Green energy don't replace fossil fuel, it adds to them. When you give faster transport to people, stats tell us they don't spend less time in transport, they just travel more distance. When we make something cheaper, we don't keep enjoying the difference, we give it to more people. Once everybody has one, we make it disposable so people buy them again. You put computers to use less energy? Nope, people use them to do things they didn't do before, and we use more energy as a whole. So yes, on a paper, capitalism is tied to efficiency. Practically, that's not reflected in our growth, as capitalism distorts incentive toward growth. And so the periods of capitalism are the periods with the most growth ever in human history. Also, when growth stats go down, the stock market goes down as well. And even better, if the energy input goes down, the production goes down, and the economic health goes down. Because you need calories for all those machines producing things. Innovation can't beat physics. At some point, if you want more, you need more resources.

Retric 4y ago
> we use more energy as a whole False. The US electricity consumption per person has fallen in the last decade. Yet, the grid has revived continuous investments from private companies. It’s the same trend as newspapers, revenue streams require continuous investments and that continues as long as those investments have a net positive result. It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit. People don’t just drive endlessly when they buy cars that use less energy, they have specific places to go and that’s it. Efficiency doesn’t drive consumption it changes the economic equation. Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location. But, again once you’re moving them from the perfect farming location there isn’t a reason to make a longer trip after that point. It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical. Rather than simply consuming more resources endlessly wealthy people shift to artificial scarcity.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  > False. The US electricity consumption per person has fallen in the last decade. I don't have stats for the US, but for the world, the trend is growth until 2016: https://imgur.com/a/WkaF60w https://imgur.com/a/WkaF60w > It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit. We invent new ways to consume power every day: video games, bitcoin, air sanitizer, food delivery... > Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location That's a good example: before, you just didn't eat mango if it didn't grow next to you, unless you had a lot of money. > It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical I consume more than my father, and he consumes more than my grandfather. The later didn't have a fridge when young, me, I can use a plane several times a year. There is a huge margin between me and a billionnaire, and everybody wants to live like one.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Here’s US electricity numbers, it’s flat from 2000 to 2008 and then dropped. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat... > before, you just didn't eat mango if it didn't grow next to you, unless you had a lot of money. But that already happened, so now once mangoes are already being shipped the energy consumption is effectively capped. Which is my point you seem to be ignoring, you can’t extrapolate to endlessly increasing resources. Yes comparing a subsistence farmer with a billionaire you see a vast increase, but it’s a sub linear increase. What happens if everyone on earth has the lifestyle of a western billionaire, does resource consumption continue to increase or does it stall?
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      Electricity is not the only energy we consume, you have to see calories as a whole: transport, chemistry, making building, etc. Also, the US delegated most of the industry in Asia, and the energy consumption moved there. If you buy an iphone in the US, the energy used to create and ship that iphone doesn't appear on the US consumption, yet it is american. And of course, any local consumption is affecting the world as a whole.

Retric 4y ago

> we use more energy as a whole False. The US electricity consumption per person has fallen in the last decade. Yet, the grid has revived continuous investments from private companies. It’s the same trend as newspapers, revenue streams require continuous investments and that continues as long as those investments have a net positive result. It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit. People don’t just drive endlessly when they buy cars that use less energy, they have specific places to go and that’s it. Efficiency doesn’t drive consumption it changes the economic equation. Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location. But, again once you’re moving them from the perfect farming location there isn’t a reason to make a longer trip after that point. It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical. Rather than simply consuming more resources endlessly wealthy people shift to artificial scarcity.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
> False. The US electricity consumption per person has fallen in the last decade. I don't have stats for the US, but for the world, the trend is growth until 2016: https://imgur.com/a/WkaF60w https://imgur.com/a/WkaF60w > It’s easy to assume people want to use endless amounts of energy, but consider once your AC gets things to a comfortable temperature lowering below that isn’t a benefit. We invent new ways to consume power every day: video games, bitcoin, air sanitizer, food delivery... > Hauling mangos long distances isn’t an inherent advantage from the trip, it simply allows them to be grown in a more efficient location That's a good example: before, you just didn't eat mango if it didn't grow next to you, unless you had a lot of money. > It’s easy to see a trend like people buying larger homes and assume it can continue forever, but if you look at billionaires you find they eventually find ever larger homes impractical I consume more than my father, and he consumes more than my grandfather. The later didn't have a fridge when young, me, I can use a plane several times a year. There is a huge margin between me and a billionnaire, and everybody wants to live like one.
- Retric 4y ago
  Here’s US electricity numbers, it’s flat from 2000 to 2008 and then dropped. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locations=US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat... > before, you just didn't eat mango if it didn't grow next to you, unless you had a lot of money. But that already happened, so now once mangoes are already being shipped the energy consumption is effectively capped. Which is my point you seem to be ignoring, you can’t extrapolate to endlessly increasing resources. Yes comparing a subsistence farmer with a billionaire you see a vast increase, but it’s a sub linear increase. What happens if everyone on earth has the lifestyle of a western billionaire, does resource consumption continue to increase or does it stall?
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    Electricity is not the only energy we consume, you have to see calories as a whole: transport, chemistry, making building, etc. Also, the US delegated most of the industry in Asia, and the energy consumption moved there. If you buy an iphone in the US, the energy used to create and ship that iphone doesn't appear on the US consumption, yet it is american. And of course, any local consumption is affecting the world as a whole.