7 ms·

This is as obvious as it is ignored, but why?

by throwbadubadu 3y ago

baggy_trough 3y ago
Because the limit is very far away, so the existence of an absolute limit to growth is simply a pedantic technicality.
- haltist 3y ago
  Children are now born with plastic in their veins. We are already at the limits of growth and potentially beyond it so either some technological miracle enables further growth or we start facing the negative consequences of cancerous growth of the human population.
- esafak 3y ago
  Is that so? Please provide evidence. Here's mine: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2023-09-13-all-planetary-boundaries-mapped-out-for-the-first-time-six-of-nine-crossed.html https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  Even if that would be completely true, then we should know where the limit is and have a plan for it, not? But that the opposite is true can hardly be ignored anymore, still it is.. :(
- aaroninsf 3y ago
  The absolute limits are very far away. The limits within which disequilibriums utterly undo the recognizable modern world are very close and indeed some have possibly been passed already. Mass death measured in 10s of millions and consequent even more massive migration is likely within our lifetimes and not particularly unlikely within the next 10 years. The last few years have awoken many Americans to the fact that their particular locale is not, as many assumed or had the luxury of not considering at all, immune from or refuge from the direct and indirect consequences of such disequlibirum. Will rich programmers be the first to die, or have our lives destroyed, or our communities? Mostly not. But we'll get there too.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    Well, I just simply believe that you're wrong.
    - baq 3y ago
      Do you believe thermodynamics is wrong?
      - baggy_trough 3y ago
        No.
        baq 3y ago
        Good! You’ll be able to derive some upper limits from simple equations then. More complex equations bring those limits down.
        baggy_trough 3y ago
        Do you believe that thermodynamic equations require the outcomes that I responded to?
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  The limit is far away only if the technology catch up with the development without sacrificing the environment. And we r definitely not that technologically advanced yet
- baq 3y ago
  2.3% energy production growth per year boils our oceans off in 4 centuries. Columbus rediscovered America more centuries ago.
  - throwaway4aday 3y ago
    Due to what? CO2? Use nuclear. 4 centuries is an extremely long time at our current pace of technological advancement which I'm assuming you're holding steady since that is the biggest driver of a 2.3% increase in energy production and consumption. If that's true then most energy production and use will be off planet in significantly less than 4 centuries.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Waste heat that cannot be radiated away into space naturally.
      - hommelix 3y ago
        Something completly weird: Imagine long vertical heatpipes reaching to space to cool down the planet. Dissipating heat into space.
haltist 3y ago
It's hard to grasp that the earth is a system within a finite volume of space. I agree it is obvious but very few people actually understand what it means to live within a bounded volume of space with finite resources.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  We only use an extremely small sliver of that volume, the surface of the Earth and some of the space above the surface but that is so small it's hardly worth mentioning. If the biosphere is the problem, then we should work to improve and expand the biosphere. Set aside land but also create new habitable land by greening deserts, expanding islands and pushing back shoreline to reclaim land. We've done this before, we're currently doing and we should do more of it. If habitable space for human occupation is the trouble then we should come up with novel ways to occupy the same valuable land with more people and provide more space to each person. We do this by constructing tall buildings, we should do more of that instead of having absurd limitations on building height in many areas. We should also innovate and build more things underground, the first obvious thing to move underground is transportation but there's no reason we couldn't locate buildings that consume a lot of square footage there too and in so doing free up the surface level e.g. sports arenas and convention centres. We could also innovate in the areas of mining and agriculture. Agriculture especially is currently very wasteful. It takes place in a completely uncontrolled environment that results in many inefficiencies. With sufficient power from a nuclear plant that activity could be moved indoors with a combination of natural and artificial light and heat enabling that land to be used year round for crops, increasing yields by extending daylight hours and reducing evaporation of water and wasted water that sinks too low into the ground or runs off which would greatly reduce water consumption and prevent wastage and side effects of fertilizers. It would also greatly reduce the need for pesticides while reducing loss of crops to pests. For mining there are proposed technologies such as extracting minerals from sea water or ocean bed mining.
  - hommelix 3y ago
    For indoor agriculture go to the Netherlands. Everything you proposed is already done there. But it requires mich Mord power than open fields.
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
The people most empowered to solve these problems stand the most to gain from ignoring them.
baq 3y ago
Most people are so used to hearing about GDP growing a few % per year they forget their physics lessons about exponential growth and biology experiments with bacteria on Petri dish. The two concepts are almost never connected in discussions, not sure why.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > not sure why "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Sometimes referred to as Sinclair's Law. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
- gshubert17 3y ago
  "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist" Attributed to many people, including Kenneth Boulding, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/11/exponential/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/11/exponential/
xnx 3y ago
Tragedy of the commons. It happens at all scales.

This is as obvious as it is ignored, but why?

baggy_trough 3y ago

Because the limit is very far away, so the existence of an absolute limit to growth is simply a pedantic technicality.

haltist 3y ago
Children are now born with plastic in their veins. We are already at the limits of growth and potentially beyond it so either some technological miracle enables further growth or we start facing the negative consequences of cancerous growth of the human population.
esafak 3y ago
Is that so? Please provide evidence. Here's mine: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2023-09-13-all-planetary-boundaries-mapped-out-for-the-first-time-six-of-nine-crossed.html https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Even if that would be completely true, then we should know where the limit is and have a plan for it, not? But that the opposite is true can hardly be ignored anymore, still it is.. :(
aaroninsf 3y ago
The absolute limits are very far away. The limits within which disequilibriums utterly undo the recognizable modern world are very close and indeed some have possibly been passed already. Mass death measured in 10s of millions and consequent even more massive migration is likely within our lifetimes and not particularly unlikely within the next 10 years. The last few years have awoken many Americans to the fact that their particular locale is not, as many assumed or had the luxury of not considering at all, immune from or refuge from the direct and indirect consequences of such disequlibirum. Will rich programmers be the first to die, or have our lives destroyed, or our communities? Mostly not. But we'll get there too.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  Well, I just simply believe that you're wrong.
  - baq 3y ago
    Do you believe thermodynamics is wrong?
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      No.
      - baq 3y ago
        Good! You’ll be able to derive some upper limits from simple equations then. More complex equations bring those limits down.
        baggy_trough 3y ago
        Do you believe that thermodynamic equations require the outcomes that I responded to?
gloryjulio 3y ago
The limit is far away only if the technology catch up with the development without sacrificing the environment. And we r definitely not that technologically advanced yet
baq 3y ago
2.3% energy production growth per year boils our oceans off in 4 centuries. Columbus rediscovered America more centuries ago.
- throwaway4aday 3y ago
  Due to what? CO2? Use nuclear. 4 centuries is an extremely long time at our current pace of technological advancement which I'm assuming you're holding steady since that is the biggest driver of a 2.3% increase in energy production and consumption. If that's true then most energy production and use will be off planet in significantly less than 4 centuries.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Waste heat that cannot be radiated away into space naturally.
    - hommelix 3y ago
      Something completly weird: Imagine long vertical heatpipes reaching to space to cool down the planet. Dissipating heat into space.

haltist 3y ago

It's hard to grasp that the earth is a system within a finite volume of space. I agree it is obvious but very few people actually understand what it means to live within a bounded volume of space with finite resources.

throwaway4aday 3y ago
We only use an extremely small sliver of that volume, the surface of the Earth and some of the space above the surface but that is so small it's hardly worth mentioning. If the biosphere is the problem, then we should work to improve and expand the biosphere. Set aside land but also create new habitable land by greening deserts, expanding islands and pushing back shoreline to reclaim land. We've done this before, we're currently doing and we should do more of it. If habitable space for human occupation is the trouble then we should come up with novel ways to occupy the same valuable land with more people and provide more space to each person. We do this by constructing tall buildings, we should do more of that instead of having absurd limitations on building height in many areas. We should also innovate and build more things underground, the first obvious thing to move underground is transportation but there's no reason we couldn't locate buildings that consume a lot of square footage there too and in so doing free up the surface level e.g. sports arenas and convention centres. We could also innovate in the areas of mining and agriculture. Agriculture especially is currently very wasteful. It takes place in a completely uncontrolled environment that results in many inefficiencies. With sufficient power from a nuclear plant that activity could be moved indoors with a combination of natural and artificial light and heat enabling that land to be used year round for crops, increasing yields by extending daylight hours and reducing evaporation of water and wasted water that sinks too low into the ground or runs off which would greatly reduce water consumption and prevent wastage and side effects of fertilizers. It would also greatly reduce the need for pesticides while reducing loss of crops to pests. For mining there are proposed technologies such as extracting minerals from sea water or ocean bed mining.
- hommelix 3y ago
  For indoor agriculture go to the Netherlands. Everything you proposed is already done there. But it requires mich Mord power than open fields.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

The people most empowered to solve these problems stand the most to gain from ignoring them.

baq 3y ago

Most people are so used to hearing about GDP growing a few % per year they forget their physics lessons about exponential growth and biology experiments with bacteria on Petri dish. The two concepts are almost never connected in discussions, not sure why.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> not sure why "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Sometimes referred to as Sinclair's Law. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/
gshubert17 3y ago
"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist" Attributed to many people, including Kenneth Boulding, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/11/exponential/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/11/exponential/

xnx 3y ago

Tragedy of the commons. It happens at all scales.