2 ms·

Thanks for engaging, it's beneficial for me to also think through this reasoning. I'm sure there are flaws in my understanding/example as well, but here is how

by mikeg8 4y ago

Thanks for engaging, it's beneficial for me to also think through this reasoning. I'm sure there are flaws in my understanding/example as well, but here is how I would respond: I think we are possibly using "finite" too loosely. A googled definition of "finite resource" is, "A resource that is concentrated or formed at a rate very much slower than its rate of consumption and so, for all practical purposes, is non-renewable." I do not believe space would be considered finite as it cannot really be "consumed." occupying a space does not deplete the resource of the space itself. Space on earth is more finite than "space", but still, there are many types of spaces for a massage to take pace: masseuses residence, the client's home, a park or yard, etc. In the economic sense, space doesn't seem finite while it may be in the Physics sense. A massage table doesn't seem finite either. If its made from wood, leather/cotton, those would be regeneratable resources and tables made with metal or plastics probably does not meet the definition of finite as a table is reusable and has a very very low rate of consumption (replaceability in this sense). Finally the most controversial: electricity! hard to argue against this without some squirming but 1) if the massage is rendered in a space with good natural lighting or outdoors, electricity is not mandatory 2) humans may find a way to make this resource much less "finite" in the future. Using the massage example was not a full-proof attempt on my part, but I can imagine others examples (vocal lessons, tutoring, coaching, selling flowers/eggs from a farm stand etc) that can be done without the "finite" resources we are discussing. My main point was that not all economic output is tied to the depletion of a finite resource.

Rury 4y ago
>A massage table doesn't seem finite either. If its made from wood, leather/cotton, those would be regenerable resources But it is finite, because those resources aren't infinitely regenerable. You're forgetting that, in order to grow a tree (or animals for wool/leather), you need to take energy and material from somewhere else. This is physics 101: you cannot create nor destroy matter or energy, you can only change its form, but to do so always takes away from somewhere else. Hence because it takes both material and energy to grow a tree, and energy and material aren't infinitely available to us, then you cannot have infinite wood tables. So, the amount of wood tables we can have is therefore finite. Now if we converted all available material to us into wood tables, we can of course burn some them, so we again have more material to grow a new tree. Then after having grown a new a tree, we can turn it back into a wood table again. However, the amount of times we can repeatedly cycle back and forth like this between tables and trees, is not infinite, because this takes excess energy to do, and the amount of excess energy available to us is not infinite, ultimately because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but for anyone having trouble thoroughly understanding that law, more practically because the sun is eventually going to burn out.
- mikeg8 4y ago
  Wow, this is a pretty big swing-and-a-miss, honestly. This discussion is about finite vs infinite in Economics, not physics. Arguing that wood is finite, in an economic sense, would be a laughable position - wood is almost always used as an example of an infinitely renewable resource.
  - Rury 4y ago
    This is an ad hominem. I did not a miss at all. Economics is bounded by the laws of physics. So, because wood is finite in a physical sense, it is also finite economically speaking.

by mikeg8 4y ago

Rury 4y ago

>A massage table doesn't seem finite either. If its made from wood, leather/cotton, those would be regenerable resources But it is finite, because those resources aren't infinitely regenerable. You're forgetting that, in order to grow a tree (or animals for wool/leather), you need to take energy and material from somewhere else. This is physics 101: you cannot create nor destroy matter or energy, you can only change its form, but to do so always takes away from somewhere else. Hence because it takes both material and energy to grow a tree, and energy and material aren't infinitely available to us, then you cannot have infinite wood tables. So, the amount of wood tables we can have is therefore finite. Now if we converted all available material to us into wood tables, we can of course burn some them, so we again have more material to grow a new tree. Then after having grown a new a tree, we can turn it back into a wood table again. However, the amount of times we can repeatedly cycle back and forth like this between tables and trees, is not infinite, because this takes excess energy to do, and the amount of excess energy available to us is not infinite, ultimately because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but for anyone having trouble thoroughly understanding that law, more practically because the sun is eventually going to burn out.

mikeg8 4y ago
Wow, this is a pretty big swing-and-a-miss, honestly. This discussion is about finite vs infinite in Economics, not physics. Arguing that wood is finite, in an economic sense, would be a laughable position - wood is almost always used as an example of an infinitely renewable resource.
- Rury 4y ago
  This is an ad hominem. I did not a miss at all. Economics is bounded by the laws of physics. So, because wood is finite in a physical sense, it is also finite economically speaking.