4 ms·

How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantu

How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?

danaris 4y ago
> How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? It's a matter of perspective. If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death. If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone. And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous. Let me turn this around on you and ask you this: What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?
- corbulo 4y ago
  Technological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies. Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc. I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government. Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.
kilgnad 4y ago
The difference is in vocabulary. Stagnation and equilibrium are the same thing only in one word the definition has positive connotations, in the other word the vocabulary had negative connotations. No point in arguing about vocabulary and connotations. If cancer stagnates though... That's typically a good thing. All the technologies you mentioned are kinda far flung and/or roughly orthogonal to the issue at hand: resource consumption as the result of growth. Humanity should 100 percent be mindful of resource consumption in such a way that they don't burn out all available resources. So to put it bluntly these are your choices using your words: you can grow uncontrollably until you die like cancer or you can stay in "stagnation" forever and live. The choice is quite obvious.
- corbulo 4y ago
  They will always be far flung technologies with an anti-growth approach. I'm not seeing anything on or beyond the horizon that we cannot adapt to and continue course. Can you cite specific examples?

danaris 4y ago

> How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? It's a matter of perspective. If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death. If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone. And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous. Let me turn this around on you and ask you this: What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?

corbulo 4y ago
Technological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies. Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc. I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government. Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.

kilgnad 4y ago

The difference is in vocabulary. Stagnation and equilibrium are the same thing only in one word the definition has positive connotations, in the other word the vocabulary had negative connotations. No point in arguing about vocabulary and connotations. If cancer stagnates though... That's typically a good thing. All the technologies you mentioned are kinda far flung and/or roughly orthogonal to the issue at hand: resource consumption as the result of growth. Humanity should 100 percent be mindful of resource consumption in such a way that they don't burn out all available resources. So to put it bluntly these are your choices using your words: you can grow uncontrollably until you die like cancer or you can stay in "stagnation" forever and live. The choice is quite obvious.

corbulo 4y ago
They will always be far flung technologies with an anti-growth approach. I'm not seeing anything on or beyond the horizon that we cannot adapt to and continue course. Can you cite specific examples?