3 ms·

> 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 gain

> 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.
- chowells 3y ago
  That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem would be "you're a crackpot, so everyone should ignore you". That might be true, but it's not the claim I made. The claim I made is that you should learn some physics, and your response only serves to reinforce that. And a very large upper bound on exponential growth is still an upper bound. It won't last forever. Once you accept that, you are ready to face the questions of when and how it should end to minimize the damage done by its end.
  - csdvrx 3y ago
    > when and how it should end to minimize the damage done by its end. You are stuck in ideology (assuming growth is damaging) and you keep being rude, so there's no point in trying to talk to you.

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.

chowells 3y ago
That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem would be "you're a crackpot, so everyone should ignore you". That might be true, but it's not the claim I made. The claim I made is that you should learn some physics, and your response only serves to reinforce that. And a very large upper bound on exponential growth is still an upper bound. It won't last forever. Once you accept that, you are ready to face the questions of when and how it should end to minimize the damage done by its end.
- csdvrx 3y ago
  > when and how it should end to minimize the damage done by its end. You are stuck in ideology (assuming growth is damaging) and you keep being rude, so there's no point in trying to talk to you.