2 ms·

A series of fads are not responsible for the economic growth we've experienced as a civilization for the last 2,000 years. What you are describing is not econo

A series of fads are not responsible for the economic growth we've experienced as a civilization for the last 2,000 years. What you are describing is not economic growth, but a steady-state economy. Money will still change hands, but we'll capped in the total amount of energy that can be expended towards production. That is going to require an enormous change in the way the economy functions.

Retric 1y ago
Stagnation, growth, and shrinking have been commonplace over the last 2,000 years. “Countries” have taken hundreds of years to regain economic peaks without being destroyed. Overall population growth hides how minimal the per capita growth has actually been. If you assume ~1$/day as subsistence level 2,000 years ago then we’re talking something like 0.2% annual growth with the vast majority of that being very recent. But even that’s overstating things based on how the modern economy values hand crafted goods.
- stouset 1y ago
  We are not talking about an individual city or country having stagnation. We are talking about the entire planet, as a whole, transitioning to a fully steady-state economy for the entirety of the planet’s future. If you that is anything like what any modern industrialized civilization has experienced or been built around, you are out of your mind. This is not just idle musing. I encourage you to do some reading about the arguments being made before assuming they can just be hand-waved away. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
  - Retric 1y ago
    > We are talking about the entire planet, as a whole, transitioning to a fully steady-state economy for the entirety of the planet’s future. If you that is anything like what any modern industrialized civilization has experienced or been built around, you are out of your mind. No we’re not, just recently COVID saw a global drop. The Great Depression and WWII saw a significant decline in the global economy. The idea that such issues are forever behind humanity is laughably absurd. I’m aware of people writing about such things, but their arguments are no more accurate than the quite recent worrying about overpopulation.
    - stouset 1y ago
      You are describing events that lasted for a handful of years and comparing them with a total and indefinitely-sustained global halting of economic growth. Energy growth is physically bounded and so must stop (on a surprisingly near timescale). Economic growth can continue for a bit with efficiency improvements and other blood-from-a-stone extraction, but is ultimately bounded by energy growth so also must stop soon thereafter. For quite literally forever. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion if you cannot understand how fundamentally unlike one-another these two situations are.
      - Retric 1y ago
        Such events aren’t singular and lifetimes are finite. WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, and the Spanish Flu hit one after another. However if dips aren’t problematic long term why would stagnation at the peak? What’s being described isn’t a problem but an idealized state impossible to realize.

Retric 1y ago

Stagnation, growth, and shrinking have been commonplace over the last 2,000 years. “Countries” have taken hundreds of years to regain economic peaks without being destroyed. Overall population growth hides how minimal the per capita growth has actually been. If you assume ~1$/day as subsistence level 2,000 years ago then we’re talking something like 0.2% annual growth with the vast majority of that being very recent. But even that’s overstating things based on how the modern economy values hand crafted goods.

stouset 1y ago
We are not talking about an individual city or country having stagnation. We are talking about the entire planet, as a whole, transitioning to a fully steady-state economy for the entirety of the planet’s future. If you that is anything like what any modern industrialized civilization has experienced or been built around, you are out of your mind. This is not just idle musing. I encourage you to do some reading about the arguments being made before assuming they can just be hand-waved away. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
- Retric 1y ago
  > We are talking about the entire planet, as a whole, transitioning to a fully steady-state economy for the entirety of the planet’s future. If you that is anything like what any modern industrialized civilization has experienced or been built around, you are out of your mind. No we’re not, just recently COVID saw a global drop. The Great Depression and WWII saw a significant decline in the global economy. The idea that such issues are forever behind humanity is laughably absurd. I’m aware of people writing about such things, but their arguments are no more accurate than the quite recent worrying about overpopulation.
  - stouset 1y ago
    You are describing events that lasted for a handful of years and comparing them with a total and indefinitely-sustained global halting of economic growth. Energy growth is physically bounded and so must stop (on a surprisingly near timescale). Economic growth can continue for a bit with efficiency improvements and other blood-from-a-stone extraction, but is ultimately bounded by energy growth so also must stop soon thereafter. For quite literally forever. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion if you cannot understand how fundamentally unlike one-another these two situations are.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Such events aren’t singular and lifetimes are finite. WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, and the Spanish Flu hit one after another. However if dips aren’t problematic long term why would stagnation at the peak? What’s being described isn’t a problem but an idealized state impossible to realize.