5 ms·

>infinite exponential growth which is impossible on a finite planet. its impossible in any space with non negative curvature. the kind of growth that is unsust

by ouid 4y ago

>infinite exponential growth which is impossible on a finite planet. its impossible in any space with non negative curvature. the kind of growth that is unsustainable in a finite region is any growth at all.

alexnewman 4y ago
constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita.
- ihaveajob 4y ago
  Zeno has entered the chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita. In theory. In practice GDP growth is strongly correlated with things like energy use and waste/pollution generation. There will come a point when either that correlation has to be broken or growth has to halt.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    While GDP growth has historically been strongly correlated with energy use and pollution (including CO2/greenhouse gas emissions), due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000. The correlation is already broken, and it seems quite plausible to continue GDP growth even with a decrease in energy use and waste/pollution generation.
    - Qem 4y ago
      > due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already. They just pushed pollution elsewhere, by outsourcing manufacturing.
      - PeterisP 4y ago
        That strengthens the effect, but no, the growth is decoupled even if you take into account the energy and pollution cost of the outsourced manufacturing. The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000, and a lot of physical goods have been effectively replaced with features in digital devices; and the main part of GDP growth for developed countries does not involve any growth in consumption of goods but rather the consumption of services - the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy has quite fundamental impact on the nature of growth.
        hikingsimulator 4y ago
        Do you have a current source on the decoupling claim accounting for outsourcing? That's a good trend if true.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        It was true in the UK ten years ago (although this Guardian article[0] tried to downplay the success): > The amount of greenhouse gases linked to goods and services consumed by UK households, including emissions from the foreign manufacture of imported products, rose by 3% between 2012 and 2013, the most recent data shows. But the figures are almost a fifth (19%) below the peak seen in 2007, when UK consumers were responsible for nearly 1.3bn tonnes of greenhouse gases. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carbon-footprint-rises-3 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carb...
        lm28469 4y ago
        > The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000 But thanks to the rebound effect we make/sell/trash more of them Like with airplanes, it doesn't matter that Rolls-Royce make their engines 5% more efficient every 10 years if in the meantime you have 4 times as many plane flying.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    The USA is the exact opposite example of this. US carbon emissions have fallen 15% since 2005 but the massive US economy continues to grow. There’s no requirement that more growth always == more pollution.
- honkler 4y ago
  population cannot shrink forever
hinkley 4y ago
Part of the problem is people thinking, "myself and everyone I could ever have the notion of caring about, and everyone they could ever have a notion of caring about" is the same thing as infinity. The universe is so goddamned big that it's hard to fathom how long it would take us to actually ruin the entire thing, or at least the parts that aren't flying away from us at faster than the speed of light. But 5% annual growth for a billion years eats up a ridiculous amount of real estate.
- ouid 4y ago
  5 percent growth for just the length of human history overflows the double precision floating point type.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  If people what to have more than two children that it is absolutely impossible.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    If 'people' have more than 2 then yes. If my N siblings collectively have 2N kids then we are at break-even. As effort for return goes, defending people for not having children may be one of the most effective acts of environmentalism someone can engage in.
aeternum 4y ago
Also if we really value life, we should probably optimize for total lives lived. The universe will not last forever and entire galaxies are being lost to both the cosmic horizon and blackholes at an alarming rate. For some reason Earth seems to be the only planet with life, so every second we spend without making life interplanetary we are snuffing out an unfathomable number of future human and animal lives.
- junon 4y ago
  This is sort of a selfish viewpoint to take, is it not? I mean I don't necessarily disagree with you, just... the reasoning seems strange to me.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    It’s ultimately a humanist set of values that lead to that conclusion. If we value human happiness we should try to make as much of that as possible.
    - diputsmonro 4y ago
      Sure, but more lives doesn't mean a net increase in happiness. A trillion people who live in the edge of starvation are probably less happy overall than a few billion who are well fed. I mean, what's the point if being a humanist of you don't care about the human?
      - ch4s3 4y ago
        There's a whole philosophical discourse about this very topic[1] and I'm not well read enough on the topic to adequately hash out the "repugnant conclusion". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
      - dreadlordbone 4y ago
        Except starvation has gone down and quality of life has gone up for the large majority of the human population. Where are you coming from with "a trillion people who live in the edge of starvation"? Some assumed doomsday situation? Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
Sure, but that's like a bacterium saying "exponential growth is unsustainable" after having colonized the extent of a petri dish. Technically it's correct; practically it's irrelevant.

by ouid 4y ago

alexnewman 4y ago

constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita.

ihaveajob 4y ago
Zeno has entered the chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...
mr_toad 4y ago
> constant growth != infinite growth constant growth just means converging growth if the population is shrinking all we need to do is increase gdp per capita. In theory. In practice GDP growth is strongly correlated with things like energy use and waste/pollution generation. There will come a point when either that correlation has to be broken or growth has to halt.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  While GDP growth has historically been strongly correlated with energy use and pollution (including CO2/greenhouse gas emissions), due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already, already before year 2000. The correlation is already broken, and it seems quite plausible to continue GDP growth even with a decrease in energy use and waste/pollution generation.
  - Qem 4y ago
    > due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already. They just pushed pollution elsewhere, by outsourcing manufacturing.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      That strengthens the effect, but no, the growth is decoupled even if you take into account the energy and pollution cost of the outsourced manufacturing. The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000, and a lot of physical goods have been effectively replaced with features in digital devices; and the main part of GDP growth for developed countries does not involve any growth in consumption of goods but rather the consumption of services - the shift from an industrial economy to a service economy has quite fundamental impact on the nature of growth.
      - hikingsimulator 4y ago
        Do you have a current source on the decoupling claim accounting for outsourcing? That's a good trend if true.
        dane-pgp 4y ago
        It was true in the UK ten years ago (although this Guardian article[0] tried to downplay the success): > The amount of greenhouse gases linked to goods and services consumed by UK households, including emissions from the foreign manufacture of imported products, rose by 3% between 2012 and 2013, the most recent data shows. But the figures are almost a fifth (19%) below the peak seen in 2007, when UK consumers were responsible for nearly 1.3bn tonnes of greenhouse gases. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carbon-footprint-rises-3 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/02/uks-carb...
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000 But thanks to the rebound effect we make/sell/trash more of them Like with airplanes, it doesn't matter that Rolls-Royce make their engines 5% more efficient every 10 years if in the meantime you have 4 times as many plane flying.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  The USA is the exact opposite example of this. US carbon emissions have fallen 15% since 2005 but the massive US economy continues to grow. There’s no requirement that more growth always == more pollution.
honkler 4y ago
population cannot shrink forever

hinkley 4y ago

Part of the problem is people thinking, "myself and everyone I could ever have the notion of caring about, and everyone they could ever have a notion of caring about" is the same thing as infinity. The universe is so goddamned big that it's hard to fathom how long it would take us to actually ruin the entire thing, or at least the parts that aren't flying away from us at faster than the speed of light. But 5% annual growth for a billion years eats up a ridiculous amount of real estate.

ouid 4y ago
5 percent growth for just the length of human history overflows the double precision floating point type.
thrown_22 4y ago
If people what to have more than two children that it is absolutely impossible.
- hinkley 4y ago
  If 'people' have more than 2 then yes. If my N siblings collectively have 2N kids then we are at break-even. As effort for return goes, defending people for not having children may be one of the most effective acts of environmentalism someone can engage in.

aeternum 4y ago

Also if we really value life, we should probably optimize for total lives lived. The universe will not last forever and entire galaxies are being lost to both the cosmic horizon and blackholes at an alarming rate. For some reason Earth seems to be the only planet with life, so every second we spend without making life interplanetary we are snuffing out an unfathomable number of future human and animal lives.

junon 4y ago
This is sort of a selfish viewpoint to take, is it not? I mean I don't necessarily disagree with you, just... the reasoning seems strange to me.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  It’s ultimately a humanist set of values that lead to that conclusion. If we value human happiness we should try to make as much of that as possible.
  - diputsmonro 4y ago
    Sure, but more lives doesn't mean a net increase in happiness. A trillion people who live in the edge of starvation are probably less happy overall than a few billion who are well fed. I mean, what's the point if being a humanist of you don't care about the human?
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      There's a whole philosophical discourse about this very topic[1] and I'm not well read enough on the topic to adequately hash out the "repugnant conclusion". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
    - dreadlordbone 4y ago
      Except starvation has gone down and quality of life has gone up for the large majority of the human population. Where are you coming from with "a trillion people who live in the edge of starvation"? Some assumed doomsday situation? Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

Sure, but that's like a bacterium saying "exponential growth is unsustainable" after having colonized the extent of a petri dish. Technically it's correct; practically it's irrelevant.