5 ms·

No. This is a classic case of Jevon's paradox. Increased efficiency in resource use can lead to increased consumption of that resource, rather than decreased co

No. This is a classic case of Jevon's paradox. Increased efficiency in resource use can lead to increased consumption of that resource, rather than decreased consumption. Example: 1. To decrease total gas consumption, more fuel efficient vehicles are invented. 2. Instead of using less gas, people drive more miles. They take longer road trips, commute farther for work, and more people can now afford to drive. 3. This increased driving leads to higher overall gasoline consumption, despite each car using gas more efficiently.

baq 2y ago
See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- bonoboTP 2y ago
  How do you argue that demand was induced as opposed to existing demand served?
  - oblio 2y ago
    Ok, not maybe instead of calling it "induced", call it "latent demand" if you prefer. People will do whatever's more convenient, so if you make driving far more convenient than everything else ("cheaper"/"more available"), they will drive. However convenience should not be the only factor for social decisions. To take this to extremes, it would be much more convenient for J. Doe to steal a car than to buy it, so we definitely do not want to make theft convenient.
  - michaelhoney 2y ago
    Yes, the term is a bit clumsy. The way I think of it, people have desires (to drive on the highway), but are dissuaded from doing so by disincentives (it’s too busy). Adding a lane reduces the disincentive, so that latent desire is satisfied, until it reaches a new equilibrium.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Result: more people getting where they want to go.
      - treyd 2y ago
        But in the case of highways, they probably would have still gotten where they want to go by another route. The folly is treating highway capacity as being a "market" when really the decision making is much more dynamic and nuanced.
        HPsquared 2y ago
        Like a market it's very complicated with many feedbacks and value judgements. For example "How much of my time is it worth sitting in traffic to get to my preferred store across town vs the closer one?" It's a bit like queueing. The cost isn't monetary.
      - bonoboTP 2y ago
        But sometimes the social environment adapts and now you have to drive that amount because it got factored in and things are now built further away, so whether you want to go far is not up to you. See long commutes becoming the norm. Now, arguably long commutes lead to better job allocations and more efficient land use as people can live in one place and work in any of the workplaces within a large radius. So it's a bit more complicated than "want", but ultimately more value seems to be produced.
        kaibee 2y ago
        > ultimately more value seems to be produced. Is more value produced or are costs just shifted off the balance sheet onto the public commons? Driving instead of walking/public transit has certainly been profitable for some people/companies. But it has also been less than ideal from a public health standpoint. And the time spent commuting is unpaid, so while the business saves money on rent, the increase in travel time is still a cost borne by society as a whole. I would describe this as the opposite of 'efficient land use' personally.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    Because economists only call it demand to the extent that people are willing and able to make a purchase. If someone has a need or wants something real bad but can't afford to buy the desired quantity at the prevailing price then economists don't call it demand.
  - Joker_vD 2y ago
    Maybe because of an extremely aggressive marketing, and pushing "AI features" into literally everything, and there being a pushback against that?
bonoboTP 2y ago
There's no paradox in that. People became more capable and can afford to do more.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Also I think this will play out for AI as a productivity multiplier. Instead of people having less work there will be more to do since more things are worth doing now. For the following few years at least.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Work expands to fill the available time, after all.
- oreilles 2y ago
  It is a paradox because there is an apparent contradiction in the fact that higher efficiency leads to higher consumption. By definition the opposite should be true.
  - bonoboTP 2y ago
    I don't share that intuition. If I earn more money, I won't necessarily save more. I'll buy better food, better clothes, better everything and live a materially more prosperous life. My savings rate may even go down. Or up. It depends on the specifics. When a tech gets more efficient, it causes people to do more. To shape their surroundings and bend reality more to their will. If you can travel easier, you can realize your travel wishes better.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Really, once you understand any "paradox", it ceases to be a paradox at all. I always feel a bit silly referring to any "paradox" as such, when it's not a paradox anymore. When it now makes perfect sense.
banannaise 2y ago
[nitpick] it's the Jevons Paradox, named for William Stanley Jevons. No apostrophe, but if you were to add one, it would be Jevons' Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons

baq 2y ago

See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

bonoboTP 2y ago
How do you argue that demand was induced as opposed to existing demand served?
- oblio 2y ago
  Ok, not maybe instead of calling it "induced", call it "latent demand" if you prefer. People will do whatever's more convenient, so if you make driving far more convenient than everything else ("cheaper"/"more available"), they will drive. However convenience should not be the only factor for social decisions. To take this to extremes, it would be much more convenient for J. Doe to steal a car than to buy it, so we definitely do not want to make theft convenient.
- michaelhoney 2y ago
  Yes, the term is a bit clumsy. The way I think of it, people have desires (to drive on the highway), but are dissuaded from doing so by disincentives (it’s too busy). Adding a lane reduces the disincentive, so that latent desire is satisfied, until it reaches a new equilibrium.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Result: more people getting where they want to go.
    - treyd 2y ago
      But in the case of highways, they probably would have still gotten where they want to go by another route. The folly is treating highway capacity as being a "market" when really the decision making is much more dynamic and nuanced.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Like a market it's very complicated with many feedbacks and value judgements. For example "How much of my time is it worth sitting in traffic to get to my preferred store across town vs the closer one?" It's a bit like queueing. The cost isn't monetary.
    - bonoboTP 2y ago
      But sometimes the social environment adapts and now you have to drive that amount because it got factored in and things are now built further away, so whether you want to go far is not up to you. See long commutes becoming the norm. Now, arguably long commutes lead to better job allocations and more efficient land use as people can live in one place and work in any of the workplaces within a large radius. So it's a bit more complicated than "want", but ultimately more value seems to be produced.
      - kaibee 2y ago
        > ultimately more value seems to be produced. Is more value produced or are costs just shifted off the balance sheet onto the public commons? Driving instead of walking/public transit has certainly been profitable for some people/companies. But it has also been less than ideal from a public health standpoint. And the time spent commuting is unpaid, so while the business saves money on rent, the increase in travel time is still a cost borne by society as a whole. I would describe this as the opposite of 'efficient land use' personally.
- fauigerzigerk 2y ago
  Because economists only call it demand to the extent that people are willing and able to make a purchase. If someone has a need or wants something real bad but can't afford to buy the desired quantity at the prevailing price then economists don't call it demand.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  Maybe because of an extremely aggressive marketing, and pushing "AI features" into literally everything, and there being a pushback against that?

bonoboTP 2y ago

There's no paradox in that. People became more capable and can afford to do more.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Also I think this will play out for AI as a productivity multiplier. Instead of people having less work there will be more to do since more things are worth doing now. For the following few years at least.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Work expands to fill the available time, after all.
oreilles 2y ago
It is a paradox because there is an apparent contradiction in the fact that higher efficiency leads to higher consumption. By definition the opposite should be true.
- bonoboTP 2y ago
  I don't share that intuition. If I earn more money, I won't necessarily save more. I'll buy better food, better clothes, better everything and live a materially more prosperous life. My savings rate may even go down. Or up. It depends on the specifics. When a tech gets more efficient, it causes people to do more. To shape their surroundings and bend reality more to their will. If you can travel easier, you can realize your travel wishes better.
crazygringo 2y ago
Really, once you understand any "paradox", it ceases to be a paradox at all. I always feel a bit silly referring to any "paradox" as such, when it's not a paradox anymore. When it now makes perfect sense.

banannaise 2y ago

[nitpick] it's the Jevons Paradox, named for William Stanley Jevons. No apostrophe, but if you were to add one, it would be Jevons' Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stanley_Jevons