4 ms·

Gustafson’s Law reminds me of Jevon’s Paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox …namely, that ever

Gustafson’s Law reminds me of Jevon’s Paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox …namely, that every time we get more efficient at using energy, we increase the amount we produce of it. Instead of doing the same things with less energy, instead we are now able to do new things that were cost prohibitive previously.

retrac 4y ago
An example: artificial lighting. Despite most lighting transitioning to fluorescent then LED, total electric demand used for lighting hasn't really gone down as the cost has gone down; people just floodlight everything now. Some napkin math indicates Canadians use about ~10x as much artificial light per capita compared to 50 years ago. It's not a law, of course, or at least not a simple one. E.g., the cost to refrigerate has come down similarly, but while air conditioning continues to increase in use, average freezer/fridge space plateaued in the 1980s. Everyone seems to now have as much freezer space as they want. Some demands are fully satisfiable and people don't necessarily consume more, even as the cost comes down.
- bombcar 4y ago
  There’s various types of demand - some seem to climb indefinitely (does anyone even bother turning lights off anymore?) and others have practical limits, like fridges and freezers. Often those limits are the results of other aspects - but there’s not real downside to lighting everything with the fury of ten thousand suns. Besides the dark sky loss.
aradox66 4y ago
Microeconomic theory (for whatever it's worth) explains this tidily: unless demand is perfectly inelastic, reducing unit costs will always increase demand at equilibrium. Demand is almost never perfectly inelastic.
- sitkack 4y ago
  You should re-read the wiki page on Jevon's Paradox.
  - aradox66 4y ago
    You're right, something was bugging me about my analysis lol. What matters is the "ratio" of efficiency is increase to the amount of demand elasticity.
sitkack 4y ago
Which leads me to think we should optimize for what we should be doing, not optimizing the thing we happen to be doing. Pointing in the right direction is more important than the velocity in a wrong direction.

retrac 4y ago

An example: artificial lighting. Despite most lighting transitioning to fluorescent then LED, total electric demand used for lighting hasn't really gone down as the cost has gone down; people just floodlight everything now. Some napkin math indicates Canadians use about ~10x as much artificial light per capita compared to 50 years ago. It's not a law, of course, or at least not a simple one. E.g., the cost to refrigerate has come down similarly, but while air conditioning continues to increase in use, average freezer/fridge space plateaued in the 1980s. Everyone seems to now have as much freezer space as they want. Some demands are fully satisfiable and people don't necessarily consume more, even as the cost comes down.

bombcar 4y ago
There’s various types of demand - some seem to climb indefinitely (does anyone even bother turning lights off anymore?) and others have practical limits, like fridges and freezers. Often those limits are the results of other aspects - but there’s not real downside to lighting everything with the fury of ten thousand suns. Besides the dark sky loss.

aradox66 4y ago

Microeconomic theory (for whatever it's worth) explains this tidily: unless demand is perfectly inelastic, reducing unit costs will always increase demand at equilibrium. Demand is almost never perfectly inelastic.

sitkack 4y ago
You should re-read the wiki page on Jevon's Paradox.
- aradox66 4y ago
  You're right, something was bugging me about my analysis lol. What matters is the "ratio" of efficiency is increase to the amount of demand elasticity.

sitkack 4y ago

Which leads me to think we should optimize for what we should be doing, not optimizing the thing we happen to be doing. Pointing in the right direction is more important than the velocity in a wrong direction.