4 ms·

> [Growth is] faster than it can be for all that much longer (there aren't enough atoms in the galaxy to sustain this rate of growth for even another 10,000 ye

> [Growth is] faster than it can be for all that much longer (there aren't enough atoms in the galaxy to sustain this rate of growth for even another 10,000 years). This assume that growth has to involve atoms. If we figure out, say, how to make a room temperature superconductor, we don't necessarily need to use more stuff - in fact, we can now build two MRIs with the same amount of atoms that we needed earlier to build just one. That is growth, without using more atoms.

gjm11 3y ago
The argument isn't "economic growth has to be growth in number of atoms". It's "if the economy grows at say 2% for say 10k years, without anything happening that today's physics says is downright impossible, then at the end of that time humanity will (1) still be physically confined to this galaxy and (2) be so wealthy that we will have as much wealth as the whole present-day economy times the number of atoms at our disposal; hence either (a) that growth will slow dramatically, or (b) something will happen that today's physics says is downright impossible, or (c) some other change will happen that decouples us from our component atoms so radically that it's possible to have a whole present-day economy's worth of wealth per atom or more; none of these options can reasonably be described as "business as usual".
ben_w 3y ago
So you've made each thing of a single atom, and yet still used every atom. 10^86 fundamental particles in the entire observable universe is great, until you have 2% compound annual interest for ten millennia that's giving you 1.02^10,000 growth factor, which is 10^86.
- konschubert 3y ago
  You can create growth without needing a single additional atom. Sometimes growth can in fact reduce resource demands. Growth just means that we learn to do things better.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > You can create growth without needing a single additional atom Prove it. Every breath you take is 10^24 or so atoms. > Growth just means that we learn to do things better. Up to 100%, and no more.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      > Prove it. Computers today are better and take fewer atoms to make than 40 years ago.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Those chips use atoms. Still, I should've phrased it better. Prove that growth can continue when the transistor are made from single atoms as standard. And just in case you suggest fission, hydrogen atoms.
      - panarchy 3y ago
        And yet even though each one of those computers uses fewer atoms there is now more computers using up more atoms in total than there were 40 years ago thanks to continued growth...
    - konschubert 3y ago
      > Every breath you take is 10^24 or so atoms. They aren't consumed, they are being recycled.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      > Up to 100%, and no more. Okay, once we found the cure to all illness; and once Physics and Math are fully understood, I agree we will be done.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        My best bet is that "all illnesses" get solved within a century. Maths has the problem that it's apparently possible to prove that for any system there must be statements which are both true and unprovable. (I don't understand how that works). Physics will always have the question of if anything else might be hiding at a deeper level; however, we get to the point of "we can no longer make stuff from atoms" well before that point. On the topic of fancy new physics: some time back, when the Alcubierre drive was piquing my interest, I wondered how hard it would be to engineer a Casimir cavity with negative mass. The answer was that (with the photon-only approximation I have to use given I'm a hobbyist not a proper physicist) you can't with any standard particles, as even neutron lasagne can't get close enough to exclude more than the mass of the sheets themselves.
- sempron64 3y ago
  10000 years is a long, long time. Civilization has only been around for 3-4k years. We shouldn't bother planning further than 1000 years ahead, it's too hard to imagine. Realistically, humanity is awful at planning further than 100 years. Even the most critical infrastructure is built with a lifespan of about 50-100 years and needs to be refurbished. In 100 years at a 2% growth rate we'd have to grow the economy about 7x. This seems quite do-able. We would need significant technological advancement but this seems to be happening; there is no technological ceiling. We do not need to colonize space to achieve this, even though it would be nice to colonize space and give us another few hundred years of runway. There's no reason to assume we can't maintain 2% global growth for the duration of our lifetimes. Whatever is after that we'll have to leave for future generations. Sustainability is important. Controlling climate change is important. I expect the world will look quite different in 100 years and at some point we must trust in the future generations.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Sure, but that's missing the point — look at some of the other replies to my comment and you'll see plenty of people apparently certain that economic growth can continue absolutely forever. The article's point, which I fruitlessly tried to support, is that the growth must at some point stop: we're living in a very remarkable era regardless of exactly how long it can go on for.
Sniffnoy 3y ago
The post links to a followup post where he discusses this point further: https://www.cold-takes.com/more-on-multiple-world-size-economies-per-atom/ https://www.cold-takes.com/more-on-multiple-world-size-econo...

gjm11 3y ago

The argument isn't "economic growth has to be growth in number of atoms". It's "if the economy grows at say 2% for say 10k years, without anything happening that today's physics says is downright impossible, then at the end of that time humanity will (1) still be physically confined to this galaxy and (2) be so wealthy that we will have as much wealth as the whole present-day economy times the number of atoms at our disposal; hence either (a) that growth will slow dramatically, or (b) something will happen that today's physics says is downright impossible, or (c) some other change will happen that decouples us from our component atoms so radically that it's possible to have a whole present-day economy's worth of wealth per atom or more; none of these options can reasonably be described as "business as usual".

ben_w 3y ago

So you've made each thing of a single atom, and yet still used every atom. 10^86 fundamental particles in the entire observable universe is great, until you have 2% compound annual interest for ten millennia that's giving you 1.02^10,000 growth factor, which is 10^86.

konschubert 3y ago
You can create growth without needing a single additional atom. Sometimes growth can in fact reduce resource demands. Growth just means that we learn to do things better.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > You can create growth without needing a single additional atom Prove it. Every breath you take is 10^24 or so atoms. > Growth just means that we learn to do things better. Up to 100%, and no more.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    > Prove it. Computers today are better and take fewer atoms to make than 40 years ago.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Those chips use atoms. Still, I should've phrased it better. Prove that growth can continue when the transistor are made from single atoms as standard. And just in case you suggest fission, hydrogen atoms.
    - panarchy 3y ago
      And yet even though each one of those computers uses fewer atoms there is now more computers using up more atoms in total than there were 40 years ago thanks to continued growth...
  - konschubert 3y ago
    > Every breath you take is 10^24 or so atoms. They aren't consumed, they are being recycled.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    > Up to 100%, and no more. Okay, once we found the cure to all illness; and once Physics and Math are fully understood, I agree we will be done.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      My best bet is that "all illnesses" get solved within a century. Maths has the problem that it's apparently possible to prove that for any system there must be statements which are both true and unprovable. (I don't understand how that works). Physics will always have the question of if anything else might be hiding at a deeper level; however, we get to the point of "we can no longer make stuff from atoms" well before that point. On the topic of fancy new physics: some time back, when the Alcubierre drive was piquing my interest, I wondered how hard it would be to engineer a Casimir cavity with negative mass. The answer was that (with the photon-only approximation I have to use given I'm a hobbyist not a proper physicist) you can't with any standard particles, as even neutron lasagne can't get close enough to exclude more than the mass of the sheets themselves.
sempron64 3y ago
10000 years is a long, long time. Civilization has only been around for 3-4k years. We shouldn't bother planning further than 1000 years ahead, it's too hard to imagine. Realistically, humanity is awful at planning further than 100 years. Even the most critical infrastructure is built with a lifespan of about 50-100 years and needs to be refurbished. In 100 years at a 2% growth rate we'd have to grow the economy about 7x. This seems quite do-able. We would need significant technological advancement but this seems to be happening; there is no technological ceiling. We do not need to colonize space to achieve this, even though it would be nice to colonize space and give us another few hundred years of runway. There's no reason to assume we can't maintain 2% global growth for the duration of our lifetimes. Whatever is after that we'll have to leave for future generations. Sustainability is important. Controlling climate change is important. I expect the world will look quite different in 100 years and at some point we must trust in the future generations.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Sure, but that's missing the point — look at some of the other replies to my comment and you'll see plenty of people apparently certain that economic growth can continue absolutely forever. The article's point, which I fruitlessly tried to support, is that the growth must at some point stop: we're living in a very remarkable era regardless of exactly how long it can go on for.

Sniffnoy 3y ago

The post links to a followup post where he discusses this point further: https://www.cold-takes.com/more-on-multiple-world-size-economies-per-atom/ https://www.cold-takes.com/more-on-multiple-world-size-econo...