3 ms·

Just have to measure things differently. GDP grows even if someone profits while producing sewage, cause someone else profits from clean up. If you call both G

by cen4 2y ago

Just have to measure things differently. GDP grows even if someone profits while producing sewage, cause someone else profits from clean up. If you call both Growth naturally DeGrowth doesn't make sense. Take the Attention Economy which is HN is a micro example off. People's finite Attention is being pulled and pushed here and there, traded, captured or stolen. But the only thing that get measured is Growth in views or ycombinators net worth.

sneed_chucker 2y ago
Right. In the modern economy we have a bunch of pothole digging industries and a bunch of pothole filling industries, and the operation of both causes the GDP to go up.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!" https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economists_are_walking_in_a_forest_when_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economist...
nradov 2y ago
Things are already measured differently, and always have been. Economists and policymakers have never really focused on maximizing GDP. They are fully aware that voters, lobbyists, and campaign contributors don't care about GDP as an abstract metric.
mlsu 2y ago
I prefer total energy use as a measure of human progress. At the end of the day, money is a proxy for energy consumption. By people in their labor, by machines, by the processing of information. Fortunately, it is steadily increasing.
- carapace 2y ago
  No. Total energy dissipation is at best a crude proxy for progress, because efficiency. That is, the goal of progress is not to expend as many calories as possible, eh? Is it not preferable to achieve one's goal with as little expenditure of energy as needed? (Fewer lines of code is better than more.) Especially today when our biggest problems are the result of flagrant consumption and pollution on mass scale I think it's time to get into the nuances of how we supply ourselves with the good life without dissipating so much energy. In order to measure "progress" you have to determine what is good, which is an open-ended question that increases in difficulty as one's intelligence grows (so AI cannot help answer it no matter how powerful they are, and GAIs will be stuck in the same boat as we.) In the wise words of the great philosopher Douglas Adams: > The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'
  - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
    > No. Total energy dissipation is at best a crude proxy for progress, because efficiency. I'm not so sure about that. Let's say humanity finds a way to build a sophisticated torment nexus and the infrastructure to power it. Then, one day a way is found to make it 5 times more energy efficient. As a result, we will have 5 torment nexuses (nexi?), not less energy consumption.
    - carapace 2y ago
      > Let's say humanity finds a way to build a sophisticated torment nexus ... No. I decline to say that at this time. Thank you. (I keep a little pickled Roko's basilisk in a jar on my bookshelf. I sometimes take it down and shake it at errant logicians to tease them. I know I shouldn't but it's just so funny.)

by cen4 2y ago

sneed_chucker 2y ago

Right. In the modern economy we have a bunch of pothole digging industries and a bunch of pothole filling industries, and the operation of both causes the GDP to go up.

cassianoleal 2y ago
Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!" https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economists_are_walking_in_a_forest_when_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economist...

nradov 2y ago

Things are already measured differently, and always have been. Economists and policymakers have never really focused on maximizing GDP. They are fully aware that voters, lobbyists, and campaign contributors don't care about GDP as an abstract metric.

mlsu 2y ago

I prefer total energy use as a measure of human progress. At the end of the day, money is a proxy for energy consumption. By people in their labor, by machines, by the processing of information. Fortunately, it is steadily increasing.

carapace 2y ago
No. Total energy dissipation is at best a crude proxy for progress, because efficiency. That is, the goal of progress is not to expend as many calories as possible, eh? Is it not preferable to achieve one's goal with as little expenditure of energy as needed? (Fewer lines of code is better than more.) Especially today when our biggest problems are the result of flagrant consumption and pollution on mass scale I think it's time to get into the nuances of how we supply ourselves with the good life without dissipating so much energy. In order to measure "progress" you have to determine what is good, which is an open-ended question that increases in difficulty as one's intelligence grows (so AI cannot help answer it no matter how powerful they are, and GAIs will be stuck in the same boat as we.) In the wise words of the great philosopher Douglas Adams: > The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  > No. Total energy dissipation is at best a crude proxy for progress, because efficiency. I'm not so sure about that. Let's say humanity finds a way to build a sophisticated torment nexus and the infrastructure to power it. Then, one day a way is found to make it 5 times more energy efficient. As a result, we will have 5 torment nexuses (nexi?), not less energy consumption.
  - carapace 2y ago
    > Let's say humanity finds a way to build a sophisticated torment nexus ... No. I decline to say that at this time. Thank you. (I keep a little pickled Roko's basilisk in a jar on my bookshelf. I sometimes take it down and shake it at errant logicians to tease them. I know I shouldn't but it's just so funny.)