3 ms·
Infinite growth is not possible with finite resources. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people (cough, economists) to understand. They treat it like a
by CatWChainsaw 3y ago
Infinite growth is not possible with finite resources. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people (cough, economists) to understand. They treat it like an actual law of physics, but conveniently ignore every time a curve that looks exponential reveals itself to be sigmoidal on a long enough timescale.
- 65 3y ago> Infinite growth is not possible with finite resources. I would argue software is an infinite resource. Therefore, we can have infinite growth in a world of software.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoSoftware exists on hardware. You can only put so many bits on so many atoms. Finite.
- 65 3y agoSoftware can be re-written on the same hardware though. Is it all technically finite? Yes. Though it's infinite in terms of human ability to use software.
- erulabs 3y agoA casual glance at nuclear physics points to a world where we’re nowhere near our energy production capabilities. Automation sings along. And that argument would be salient if it was required - “economists say infinite growth is possible” is a strawman argument.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago"Nowhere near" is not "literally infinite". How many nuclear reactors can you build with a finite amount of matter? See other comment. I'm not sure why pointing out that economists say, believe, and rely on infinite growth is a strawman when it is a statement of fact.
- erulabs 3y agoOkay, then find me the economist who believes in "literally infinite" growth. If you have a hard time finding _one person_ who is both a published economist and has no grasp of the basic laws of thermodynamics, then that view is probably not representative. This is the weakest possible form of the argument, hence the "straw".
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoI kind of figured the rebuttal was going to be "we don't literally mean literally infinite growth forever, but our models do, and we believe our models, don't call it a strawman." If the rate of economic growth merely slows, we get a recession. What kind of hell happens if the rate goes negative and the economy shrinks? For too long? I don't feel obligated to point at any one person who says "yes I believe growth can continue infinitely forever" because it's the most basic assumption baked into economic models on how prosperity works. An assumption of infinite growth, and assumption that "progress" is also eternal, that there is always something more.
- erulabs 3y agoIt is absolutely not the most basic assumption based into economic models. Neither you nor I can find one single person who believes that. It is the weakest possible form of an argument you are intentionally misconstruing. This is the straw in the straw man. The steelman version of that argument is "can logarithmic growth continue for one hundred thousand times longer than the expected lifetime of our sun?". I think it's actually quite easy to say yes to that. One fun idea here is Von Neumann probes[1]. There is infinite distance between infinity and a negative number. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Von_Neumann_probes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Vo...
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoThere is infinite distance between 0 and 1. Fantastical machines as evidence for a fantastical argument is not compelling in the slightest.
- protocolture 3y agoAssuming all growth came from logging sure. But efficiency gains are also growth. Assuming that accessible resources are a big counter down to zero is just neo malthusian thinking.
- Aloisius 3y agoOne does not need to consume additional resources for growth. One can can instead use resources better to produce more valuable stuff (intensive growth). The question is if there is a limit to the value of things we can produce with finite resources - and the answer is likely no - at least not in any kind of human timescale.
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoJevons Paradox exists.