3 ms·
>How do you think that having two doctors instead of one, where the 2nd has no access to tools is still a resource efficiency solution? Because you are still m
by bumby 3y ago
>How do you think that having two doctors instead of one, where the 2nd has no access to tools is still a resource efficiency solution?
Because you are still more efficiently using that 2nd doctors time. Time is the resource in that case.
And I agree with your last point. The mail issue I’m bringing up is that economic growth, as traditionally defined, is a blunt tool at best to measure what we really care about: quality of life. I think there is a good argument that there is marginal utility past a certain point, if not outright negative impacts. We confuse the measure for the target.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago>Because you are still more efficiently using that 2nd doctors time. Time is the resource in that case. Yes, it is a more productive use of human human capital and time. I think that time is a different resource than the parent poster was talking about when they spoke of resource-depletion-driven collapse, physical limits, and unsustainable growth. I take that to mean they think physical material consumption must always go up if we want economic growth. This is why I tried to point out that economic growth can include many things that don't need raw materials.