5 ms·

Their point was that -- since there are a finite number of atoms in the universe-- it is a given that there exists some upper-bound on growth. They are intent

Their point was that -- since there are a finite number of atoms in the universe-- it is a given that there exists some upper-bound on growth. They are intentionally calling attention to that absurd extreme as a rhetoric device, not out of a belief that that's when we'll hit the wall. (It's a safe bet they believe will hit the wall much much much sooner.)

konschubert 3y ago
You can have growth without using more material or more energy.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  Yeah, you can get more efficient up to a point. What does that buy you, maybe another factor of 10?
- rvbissell 3y ago
  Ultimately, economic growth is driven by population growth.[0] And also, there is a feedback loop where population growth is encouraged by economic growth. Since people require material and energy input, and there is a limit to both on this planet,[1] economic growth is expected to flatten once the population outstrips the Earth's resources. [0] There is also the growth that comes in spurts from technological innovations. Those spurts should be amortized across the entire ranges of years that follow them when assessing the resultant growth. IMO, such technological innovations are akin to data compression, increasing entropy. Over the loooong haul, I'd expect such spurts to have diminishing returns (just like compressing a compressed file has diminishing returns.) [1] I guess expanding our reach beyond Earth would be one of those 'spurts'. EDIT: fixed a word
  - andrewjl 3y ago
    > There is also the growth that comes in spurts from technological innovations. Those spurts should be amortized across the entire ranges of years that follow them when assessing the resultant growth. Technological spurts ultimately drive productivity and the latter in turn drives growth. Why do these spurts need to be amortized across longer periods of time? Especially when many have compounding effects?
    - rvbissell 3y ago
      I didn't think that particular point of mine through, well enough. I think you're right, I should have removed it before replying.
      - andrewjl 3y ago
        All good, was just curious.
zuhayeer 3y ago
The limiting factor isn't atoms, it's always been knowledge. Before we knew what coal was capable of, it was just a rock. Knowledge unlocks abundance with the limited resources we have.
- dsizzle 3y ago
  100%. To take it a step further -- we can also find more efficient forms of energy (e.g. nuclear energy), and get more energy / economic growth while using fewer atoms.
- beeskip 3y ago
  You're missing the point. Knowledge is a physical arrangement of neurons. If there are a finite amount of atoms, there's a finite arrangement of atoms. Neurons are made from atoms. The fact that such a limit obviously exists contradicts the notion of infinite growth, regardless of how large that limit appears. The power of exponentiation ensures that this limit is practically within reach. If the premise of infinite growth is wrong, then we should be thinking of alternatives sooner rather than later. That was my takeaway from the article.
  - zuhayeer 3y ago
    Knowledge is compression, and thus it can be infinite
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    The number of ways to arrange things grows exponentially with the number of them. Sounds fine to me...
    - gnramires 3y ago
      Sure, but the number of ways to arrange things is practically not of direct (that is, linearly proportional!) relevance or value to humans. For example, that you can arrange things in 2^1000000000000 different ways in a hard drive is not that interesting, and certainly the hard drive's "practical utility" is nowhere near proportional to such number: if it was, hard drives would be an utterly unimaginable miracle. Instead, their utility is (arguably) proportional to log(number of states), i.e. the number of bits it can store, which is 1Tbits. Because things we care about need energy to function, and atoms to operate, any seemingly reasonable/practical definition of value or utility cannot grow exponentially for too long, or it will quickly exhaust those resources. That said, we can indeed refine say our software to some extent. But it's important to keep in mind software has significant limitations as well, and complexity theory gives lower bounds on problems of practical relevance. We might get a few percent faster (in terms of number of operations) sorting algorithms (and merge sort), for instance, but no more, at least for random inputs. I think less clear are say quality of life or new experiences afforded by new media, new novels, new games, new ways of seeing things. I think there is indeed significant improvement to be had, but also we probably shouldn't get carried away this is some kind of infinity: all things are limited when it comes to a life. I do think simply lifting everyone to a good condition (mostly emotional and basic needs) has a very surprising and large coefficient of gain.
mr_toad 3y ago
The number of atoms is finite but the number of states of those atoms is infinite. And the combinations of all those atoms in different states far exceeds the number of atoms. What probably matters more than the number of atoms is the useful work that can employed in order to arrange those atoms in useful configurations. The upper limit of economic growth is probably limited by the amount of computation that can be done before the end of the universe.

konschubert 3y ago

You can have growth without using more material or more energy.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
Yeah, you can get more efficient up to a point. What does that buy you, maybe another factor of 10?
rvbissell 3y ago
Ultimately, economic growth is driven by population growth.[0] And also, there is a feedback loop where population growth is encouraged by economic growth. Since people require material and energy input, and there is a limit to both on this planet,[1] economic growth is expected to flatten once the population outstrips the Earth's resources. [0] There is also the growth that comes in spurts from technological innovations. Those spurts should be amortized across the entire ranges of years that follow them when assessing the resultant growth. IMO, such technological innovations are akin to data compression, increasing entropy. Over the loooong haul, I'd expect such spurts to have diminishing returns (just like compressing a compressed file has diminishing returns.) [1] I guess expanding our reach beyond Earth would be one of those 'spurts'. EDIT: fixed a word
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > There is also the growth that comes in spurts from technological innovations. Those spurts should be amortized across the entire ranges of years that follow them when assessing the resultant growth. Technological spurts ultimately drive productivity and the latter in turn drives growth. Why do these spurts need to be amortized across longer periods of time? Especially when many have compounding effects?
  - rvbissell 3y ago
    I didn't think that particular point of mine through, well enough. I think you're right, I should have removed it before replying.
    - andrewjl 3y ago
      All good, was just curious.

zuhayeer 3y ago

The limiting factor isn't atoms, it's always been knowledge. Before we knew what coal was capable of, it was just a rock. Knowledge unlocks abundance with the limited resources we have.

dsizzle 3y ago
100%. To take it a step further -- we can also find more efficient forms of energy (e.g. nuclear energy), and get more energy / economic growth while using fewer atoms.
beeskip 3y ago
You're missing the point. Knowledge is a physical arrangement of neurons. If there are a finite amount of atoms, there's a finite arrangement of atoms. Neurons are made from atoms. The fact that such a limit obviously exists contradicts the notion of infinite growth, regardless of how large that limit appears. The power of exponentiation ensures that this limit is practically within reach. If the premise of infinite growth is wrong, then we should be thinking of alternatives sooner rather than later. That was my takeaway from the article.
- zuhayeer 3y ago
  Knowledge is compression, and thus it can be infinite
- whatshisface 3y ago
  The number of ways to arrange things grows exponentially with the number of them. Sounds fine to me...
  - gnramires 3y ago
    Sure, but the number of ways to arrange things is practically not of direct (that is, linearly proportional!) relevance or value to humans. For example, that you can arrange things in 2^1000000000000 different ways in a hard drive is not that interesting, and certainly the hard drive's "practical utility" is nowhere near proportional to such number: if it was, hard drives would be an utterly unimaginable miracle. Instead, their utility is (arguably) proportional to log(number of states), i.e. the number of bits it can store, which is 1Tbits. Because things we care about need energy to function, and atoms to operate, any seemingly reasonable/practical definition of value or utility cannot grow exponentially for too long, or it will quickly exhaust those resources. That said, we can indeed refine say our software to some extent. But it's important to keep in mind software has significant limitations as well, and complexity theory gives lower bounds on problems of practical relevance. We might get a few percent faster (in terms of number of operations) sorting algorithms (and merge sort), for instance, but no more, at least for random inputs. I think less clear are say quality of life or new experiences afforded by new media, new novels, new games, new ways of seeing things. I think there is indeed significant improvement to be had, but also we probably shouldn't get carried away this is some kind of infinity: all things are limited when it comes to a life. I do think simply lifting everyone to a good condition (mostly emotional and basic needs) has a very surprising and large coefficient of gain.

mr_toad 3y ago

The number of atoms is finite but the number of states of those atoms is infinite. And the combinations of all those atoms in different states far exceeds the number of atoms. What probably matters more than the number of atoms is the useful work that can employed in order to arrange those atoms in useful configurations. The upper limit of economic growth is probably limited by the amount of computation that can be done before the end of the universe.