30 ms·

How did we actually escape the zero sum game that is economics? Oil, lumber, plastics, steel, human labor, electricity, etc are all still finite resources. It

How did we actually escape the zero sum game that is economics? Oil, lumber, plastics, steel, human labor, electricity, etc are all still finite resources. It seems like we've been playing in a much larger zero sum game, and that allowed us to gain temporarily profit from that much larger game. We can't escape it though, only finite resources have economic value.

pasc1878 2y ago
Because we found something to addd on to each of them. Oil - nuclear power - renewable energy Lumber - is renewable Plastics - use less (packaging) and more renewables - but yea this is limited and we need all oil for this. Also recycling. Steel - recycling Human labour - animal power - engines - for thought - computers then AI? Electricity - renewables - fission. There is a lot of leeway if we don't waste the resources and ingenuity and discoveries have made it a non zero-sum game.
- rainsford 2y ago
  A related point I've heard here is that we ultimately only get one shot at bootstrapping ourselves into a truly advanced civilization no longer entirely reliant on finite resources. If we screw up the transition and expend those finite resources, especially fossil fuels, before we move beyond them, we won't have enough foundation left to try again. Nuclear and renewables might replace fossil fuels, but if you run out of fossil fuels before nuclear and renewables can pick up the slack, you're doomed to regress to a pre-energy society and it will be impossible to get back to a point where nuclear power is achievable without cheap fossil fuel energy. The key here for me is that treating economics like a zero sum game now makes it significantly more likely we end up at a place where it really is zero sum because zero sum thinking is nearly always short-sighted by definition, and getting to the next level requires more strategic thinking.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > no longer entirely reliant on finite resources I've never quite wrapped my head around what that looks like. What resources could we possibly use that aren't finite? Maybe we don't hit max utilization for a while, that happens after large innovation jumps, but there's always a cap in natural resources somewhere.
    - rainsford 2y ago
      That's a valid point. On long enough timescales, even stars will burn out. But the cap I was thinking of was less in terms of capacity and more in terms of longevity. There's an upper limit to how much energy we can generate with solar panels on Earth for example, but we'd be able to sustain that capacity for a long, long period of time. On that kind of timescale, it's far less likely we run out of energy before we can move to a new alternative (perhaps an alternative planet). You're right that no resource is infinite, so maybe the better way to phrase it is resources where we won't run out of them before we are unlikely to need them again.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        That probably runs into Jevan's Paradox - we may get more efficient but we'll just increase our use to take advantage of the resources we already have. In what you describe I can't help but see us stuck on a treadmill, endlessly chasing the next innovation to replace the current tech before we run out of resources. We won't be arguing about oil the next time around, bit maybe lithium? I can't help but wonder what the point is. We could just use less and accept enough rather than constantly wanting the next big thing. I could have 10% of what I have today and still live a more comfortable life than almost all of human history.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
Economics is not zero-sum. People working together are more productive than each person trying to subsist alone. The same goes for countries. The world economy is incredibly complex, and no country can produce everything by itself.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That works in the short term, but the broader game is still zero sum. There's only so many resources to go around, and at least with how we treat economics the only things of value are scarce. Innovations and cooperation can give periods of optimization so it feel like the zero sum is no longer zero sum. At the end of the day it is though, and there's probably a decent case to be made that what we're seeing happen today is due in part to us having optimized as far as we can for this round.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    How is it short-term? Division of labor does not go away. If anything, specialization and division of labor increase as the world economy becomes more and more complex and developed.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I say its short term because the inefficiencies eventually get worked out and we're back to a point where we're utilizing all the resources we can make economic use of and we again have zero sum game. The zero sum game doesn't stop, we just found a way to unlock new uses or new resources such that we temporarily just compete to claim those new resources. Think of it with land. If all the land we know of is already "owned" we must compete. If we discover new land everyone can scramble to "own" that land so it is temporarily not really zero sum. Ultimately land is finite though, and we get back to a zero sum game after a brief interlude.
      - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        The point I'm making is that it never stops being positive-sum. It remains true that it's better for everyone if everyone works together. If you halt international trade, everyone will be poorer.
dh2022 2y ago
We are escaping this zero-sum game with innovation. We are finding replacements for expensive materials or figure out how to use less of them. Innovation and knowledge are compounding: a bit more knowledge today means a bit more knowledge a year from now, and then a bit more knowledge a year later etc..
- _heimdall 2y ago
  We're escaping it for a while. Innovation can't make scarce resources magically infinite. We can absolutely find ways to optimize resources we already have and find new uses for resources, but we can't make resources out of thin air.
  - dh2022 2y ago
    Innovation can totally do it.. We are escaping the finiteness of oil and gas with wind and solar power.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      No, we're replacing finite oil and gas with other finite resources. Sun and wind require hardware to be converted into usable energy, that requires finite materials. Sun and wind also require massive energy storage solutions to replace the ease of storing energy in the form of oil. Again that energy storage requires finite materials to make, maintain, and replace as they degrade.

pasc1878 2y ago

Because we found something to addd on to each of them. Oil - nuclear power - renewable energy Lumber - is renewable Plastics - use less (packaging) and more renewables - but yea this is limited and we need all oil for this. Also recycling. Steel - recycling Human labour - animal power - engines - for thought - computers then AI? Electricity - renewables - fission. There is a lot of leeway if we don't waste the resources and ingenuity and discoveries have made it a non zero-sum game.

rainsford 2y ago
A related point I've heard here is that we ultimately only get one shot at bootstrapping ourselves into a truly advanced civilization no longer entirely reliant on finite resources. If we screw up the transition and expend those finite resources, especially fossil fuels, before we move beyond them, we won't have enough foundation left to try again. Nuclear and renewables might replace fossil fuels, but if you run out of fossil fuels before nuclear and renewables can pick up the slack, you're doomed to regress to a pre-energy society and it will be impossible to get back to a point where nuclear power is achievable without cheap fossil fuel energy. The key here for me is that treating economics like a zero sum game now makes it significantly more likely we end up at a place where it really is zero sum because zero sum thinking is nearly always short-sighted by definition, and getting to the next level requires more strategic thinking.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > no longer entirely reliant on finite resources I've never quite wrapped my head around what that looks like. What resources could we possibly use that aren't finite? Maybe we don't hit max utilization for a while, that happens after large innovation jumps, but there's always a cap in natural resources somewhere.
  - rainsford 2y ago
    That's a valid point. On long enough timescales, even stars will burn out. But the cap I was thinking of was less in terms of capacity and more in terms of longevity. There's an upper limit to how much energy we can generate with solar panels on Earth for example, but we'd be able to sustain that capacity for a long, long period of time. On that kind of timescale, it's far less likely we run out of energy before we can move to a new alternative (perhaps an alternative planet). You're right that no resource is infinite, so maybe the better way to phrase it is resources where we won't run out of them before we are unlikely to need them again.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That probably runs into Jevan's Paradox - we may get more efficient but we'll just increase our use to take advantage of the resources we already have. In what you describe I can't help but see us stuck on a treadmill, endlessly chasing the next innovation to replace the current tech before we run out of resources. We won't be arguing about oil the next time around, bit maybe lithium? I can't help but wonder what the point is. We could just use less and accept enough rather than constantly wanting the next big thing. I could have 10% of what I have today and still live a more comfortable life than almost all of human history.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

Economics is not zero-sum. People working together are more productive than each person trying to subsist alone. The same goes for countries. The world economy is incredibly complex, and no country can produce everything by itself.

_heimdall 2y ago
That works in the short term, but the broader game is still zero sum. There's only so many resources to go around, and at least with how we treat economics the only things of value are scarce. Innovations and cooperation can give periods of optimization so it feel like the zero sum is no longer zero sum. At the end of the day it is though, and there's probably a decent case to be made that what we're seeing happen today is due in part to us having optimized as far as we can for this round.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  How is it short-term? Division of labor does not go away. If anything, specialization and division of labor increase as the world economy becomes more and more complex and developed.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I say its short term because the inefficiencies eventually get worked out and we're back to a point where we're utilizing all the resources we can make economic use of and we again have zero sum game. The zero sum game doesn't stop, we just found a way to unlock new uses or new resources such that we temporarily just compete to claim those new resources. Think of it with land. If all the land we know of is already "owned" we must compete. If we discover new land everyone can scramble to "own" that land so it is temporarily not really zero sum. Ultimately land is finite though, and we get back to a zero sum game after a brief interlude.
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      The point I'm making is that it never stops being positive-sum. It remains true that it's better for everyone if everyone works together. If you halt international trade, everyone will be poorer.

dh2022 2y ago

We are escaping this zero-sum game with innovation. We are finding replacements for expensive materials or figure out how to use less of them. Innovation and knowledge are compounding: a bit more knowledge today means a bit more knowledge a year from now, and then a bit more knowledge a year later etc..

_heimdall 2y ago
We're escaping it for a while. Innovation can't make scarce resources magically infinite. We can absolutely find ways to optimize resources we already have and find new uses for resources, but we can't make resources out of thin air.
- dh2022 2y ago
  Innovation can totally do it.. We are escaping the finiteness of oil and gas with wind and solar power.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    No, we're replacing finite oil and gas with other finite resources. Sun and wind require hardware to be converted into usable energy, that requires finite materials. Sun and wind also require massive energy storage solutions to replace the ease of storing energy in the form of oil. Again that energy storage requires finite materials to make, maintain, and replace as they degrade.