4 ms·

You opened by saying that you're not proposing economic stagnation, but then wrote several paragraphs arguing for economic stagnation. Human technology isn't a

You opened by saying that you're not proposing economic stagnation, but then wrote several paragraphs arguing for economic stagnation. Human technology isn't a finite resource.

Syonyk 3y ago
Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite {planet, solar system, galaxy, universe}? If not, then we will eventually have to deal with the problem. We can do it now, or later. Personally, I think "sooner" is better than "later" to deal with it, because I don't see us meaningfully getting off the planet, so maybe let's not trash the place worse.
- peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
  It's a fallacy to suggest that economic growth is finite, because human invention isn't a finite resource.
  - Syonyk 3y ago
    Human invention isn't, but energy certainly is, and the correlation between "economic growth" and "energy use per capita" is very, very strong. At least some of the "degrowth" has been a result of "financialization services," or the fine art of playing investor games enough times that you end up believing you're immune to things like, say, the 2008 housing crash. But we clearly disagree on this matter, and I don't see a point in continuing to go around on it. Time will tell which of us happens to be closer to correct.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Human invention can also have its problems too. While it might not be finite, the risks can be infinite. For example Nuclear energy and weapons, bio-engineering, AI, genetic modification, fossil fuel based power generation, factory farming and more. I’d argue they nearly all the technologies on that list are economically driven, or have a an economically driven component. This is dangerous because it means someone will invent potentially harmful shit to keep riding the wave of economics.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite {planet, solar system, galaxy, universe}? Yes, I believe exponential growth can continue forever, for 2 reasons: - 1) because you assume the universe is finite. This is a very long shot, not supported by mainstream science or theories. - 2) should the 1st point be eventually disproved and the universe has boundaries, I still do, because growth isn't only hardware. Software growth can leverage the increase gains from hardware (more storage density, lower power requirements etc) What's more plausible is that the growth rate will eventually tend towards a much lower value when most of the human needs and wants are satiated. Stagnation is implausible, because even if needs might be finite, wants are not. What's totally implausible is degrowth.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Degrowth has occurred multiple times in human history so far. Unending limitless growth has not.
  - chowells 3y ago
    > you assume the universe is finite. This is a very long shot, not supported by mainstream science or theories > Software growth can leverage the increase gains from hardware (more storage density, lower power requirements etc) You should probably learn some physics if you want to make statements about what's phsyically possible. Whether the universe is finite or not is completely irrelevant. The portion of it humanity can access is finite, thanks to dark energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVoh27gJgME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVoh27gJgME Of course, even if you reject dark energy, you're still limited by pure geometry and the speed of light. Human resource growth has a hard upper bound proportional to (elapsed time)^3, because of three spatial dimensions and the speed of light. And as we all know, any exponential growth is faster than any polynomial grown, in the long term. And at the other end, there is a maximum efficiency possible. You cannot work below particular thresholds, thanks to uncertainty. There is no escape from the fact that exponential growth always ends.
    - csdvrx 3y ago
      > You should probably learn some physics FYI, ad hominem are not nice > if you reject dark energy, you're still limited by pure geometry and the speed of light. I do reject dark energy. And I'd like to remind you that you have a lot of assumptions baked-in. To cut in short, if in the worst case there's no spooky-effect-at-a-distance and uncertainty prevents us to go to subatomic levels, and if there are no subspaces, then yes, growth might be limited to the (elapsed time)^3. That's a lot of ifs, and that'd still be not an argument for degrowth - just for a very large upper ceiling that'd still be compatible with continuous (and large!) growth. Let's explore the science before making the doomer conclusion we must brace for degrowth, because I see that as an argument driven by ideology, not by science.
- gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
  While I don't have great opinion one way or another, you seem to think that not-mathematically-infinite and functionally-infinite are the same thing. While I don't think that true infinite growth is possible, I do think that proximate infinite growth is possible for an extended period of many centuries. I guess this puts me in the kicking-the-can group.
- Jigewi 3y ago
  > Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite Yes, because money is infinite thanks to it being a social construct.

You opened by saying that you're not proposing economic stagnation, but then wrote several paragraphs arguing for economic stagnation. Human technology isn't a finite resource.

Syonyk 3y ago

Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite {planet, solar system, galaxy, universe}? If not, then we will eventually have to deal with the problem. We can do it now, or later. Personally, I think "sooner" is better than "later" to deal with it, because I don't see us meaningfully getting off the planet, so maybe let's not trash the place worse.

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
It's a fallacy to suggest that economic growth is finite, because human invention isn't a finite resource.
- Syonyk 3y ago
  Human invention isn't, but energy certainly is, and the correlation between "economic growth" and "energy use per capita" is very, very strong. At least some of the "degrowth" has been a result of "financialization services," or the fine art of playing investor games enough times that you end up believing you're immune to things like, say, the 2008 housing crash. But we clearly disagree on this matter, and I don't see a point in continuing to go around on it. Time will tell which of us happens to be closer to correct.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Human invention can also have its problems too. While it might not be finite, the risks can be infinite. For example Nuclear energy and weapons, bio-engineering, AI, genetic modification, fossil fuel based power generation, factory farming and more. I’d argue they nearly all the technologies on that list are economically driven, or have a an economically driven component. This is dangerous because it means someone will invent potentially harmful shit to keep riding the wave of economics.
csdvrx 3y ago
> Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite {planet, solar system, galaxy, universe}? Yes, I believe exponential growth can continue forever, for 2 reasons: - 1) because you assume the universe is finite. This is a very long shot, not supported by mainstream science or theories. - 2) should the 1st point be eventually disproved and the universe has boundaries, I still do, because growth isn't only hardware. Software growth can leverage the increase gains from hardware (more storage density, lower power requirements etc) What's more plausible is that the growth rate will eventually tend towards a much lower value when most of the human needs and wants are satiated. Stagnation is implausible, because even if needs might be finite, wants are not. What's totally implausible is degrowth.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Degrowth has occurred multiple times in human history so far. Unending limitless growth has not.
- chowells 3y ago
  > you assume the universe is finite. This is a very long shot, not supported by mainstream science or theories > Software growth can leverage the increase gains from hardware (more storage density, lower power requirements etc) You should probably learn some physics if you want to make statements about what's phsyically possible. Whether the universe is finite or not is completely irrelevant. The portion of it humanity can access is finite, thanks to dark energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVoh27gJgME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVoh27gJgME Of course, even if you reject dark energy, you're still limited by pure geometry and the speed of light. Human resource growth has a hard upper bound proportional to (elapsed time)^3, because of three spatial dimensions and the speed of light. And as we all know, any exponential growth is faster than any polynomial grown, in the long term. And at the other end, there is a maximum efficiency possible. You cannot work below particular thresholds, thanks to uncertainty. There is no escape from the fact that exponential growth always ends.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    > You should probably learn some physics FYI, ad hominem are not nice > if you reject dark energy, you're still limited by pure geometry and the speed of light. I do reject dark energy. And I'd like to remind you that you have a lot of assumptions baked-in. To cut in short, if in the worst case there's no spooky-effect-at-a-distance and uncertainty prevents us to go to subatomic levels, and if there are no subspaces, then yes, growth might be limited to the (elapsed time)^3. That's a lot of ifs, and that'd still be not an argument for degrowth - just for a very large upper ceiling that'd still be compatible with continuous (and large!) growth. Let's explore the science before making the doomer conclusion we must brace for degrowth, because I see that as an argument driven by ideology, not by science.
gadflyinyoureye 3y ago
While I don't have great opinion one way or another, you seem to think that not-mathematically-infinite and functionally-infinite are the same thing. While I don't think that true infinite growth is possible, I do think that proximate infinite growth is possible for an extended period of many centuries. I guess this puts me in the kicking-the-can group.
Jigewi 3y ago
> Do you believe that exponential growth can continue forever on a finite Yes, because money is infinite thanks to it being a social construct.