3 ms·

This page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/pre... explains in m

This page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/press-release/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/pre... explains in more detail what they mean. It's a pretty clean and effective explanation. > Technology advances rapidly and affects us all, with new products and production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle. This is the basis for sustained economic growth, which results in a better standard of living, health and quality of life for people around the globe. > However, this was not always the case. Quite the opposite – stagnation was the norm throughout most of human history. Despite important discoveries now and again, which sometimes led to improved living conditions and higher incomes, growth always eventually levelled off. ...

fnord77 1y ago
Stagnation is environmentally sustainable. Constant creation-destruction cycles will ultimately deplete the environment
- lanfeust6 1y ago
  Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. Population growth is stagnating and will peak in less than 100 years. Neo-Malthusianism is as bunk as Malthusianism was
  - cassianoleal 1y ago
    > Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. ...to produce the same output. Growth requires greater output though. Just look at the timeline of energy consumption [0]. Either you're wrong and innovation requires more resources, or you're right and there's no direct relation between innovation and overall resource usage. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      The metric you’re looking for is energy intensity of GDP [1]. How much energy does each unit of GDP cost. It’s been going down, and it’s lower in rich countries than less developed ones. (Its material counterpart is material intensity of GDP.) [1] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-intensity-gdp-data.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-inte...
      - cassianoleal 1y ago
        Thanks, that's an interesting reference. I'm not sure that's what I was looking for though. That's unit consumption per GDP, so it may look stable or even declining regardless of actual consumption of resources. In a way, it indicates the potential for a more sustainable living but unless it goes down by greater amounts than GDP growth, it's still net positive environmental damage.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > unless it goes down by greater amounts than GDP growth, it's still net positive environmental damage Sure. Link in population and living standards and you start to get a toy model that dispels the notion that all growth must be about consumption. (A palette of iPhones represents growth from mainframes of equal mass and energy consumption.)
    - astrange 1y ago
      GDP technically does not require greater output, it just requires more frequent trading.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Stagnation is environmentally sustainable We know this to be false given the number of civilisations that depleted their soil due because they didn’t know (or care) about crop rotation. Stable-state economies which nevertheless collapsed because they missed a key technology.
mallowdram 1y ago
There was more likely a series of 2K-4K golden ages diffused across areas globally 5-1K BCE where stagnation wasn't the rule. We've probably yet to even come close to that eden-like experience.
geysersam 1y ago
> Technology advances rapidly and affects us all, with new products and production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle. This is the basis for sustained economic growth since the end of the 19th century... Am I missing something? How can they assert that the current trajectory of economic growth won't end in stagnation, like every other growth spurt throughout history? Sure, the economic growth of the last 150 years is unprecedented in history. But so was the second most significant period of economic growth before it stagnated.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > How can they assert that the current trajectory of economic growth won't end in stagnation, like every other growth spurt throughout history? Straw man. Nobody argues this.
  - geysersam 1y ago
    > production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle > sustained economic growth Is it really such an unreasonable reading?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Is it really such an unreasonable reading? It's reasonable but unnecessarily reductive. Particulalry when TFA is linked above.

fnord77 1y ago

Stagnation is environmentally sustainable. Constant creation-destruction cycles will ultimately deplete the environment

lanfeust6 1y ago
Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. Population growth is stagnating and will peak in less than 100 years. Neo-Malthusianism is as bunk as Malthusianism was
- cassianoleal 1y ago
  > Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. ...to produce the same output. Growth requires greater output though. Just look at the timeline of energy consumption [0]. Either you're wrong and innovation requires more resources, or you're right and there's no direct relation between innovation and overall resource usage. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    The metric you’re looking for is energy intensity of GDP [1]. How much energy does each unit of GDP cost. It’s been going down, and it’s lower in rich countries than less developed ones. (Its material counterpart is material intensity of GDP.) [1] https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-intensity-gdp-data.html https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-inte...
    - cassianoleal 1y ago
      Thanks, that's an interesting reference. I'm not sure that's what I was looking for though. That's unit consumption per GDP, so it may look stable or even declining regardless of actual consumption of resources. In a way, it indicates the potential for a more sustainable living but unless it goes down by greater amounts than GDP growth, it's still net positive environmental damage.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > unless it goes down by greater amounts than GDP growth, it's still net positive environmental damage Sure. Link in population and living standards and you start to get a toy model that dispels the notion that all growth must be about consumption. (A palette of iPhones represents growth from mainframes of equal mass and energy consumption.)
  - astrange 1y ago
    GDP technically does not require greater output, it just requires more frequent trading.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Stagnation is environmentally sustainable We know this to be false given the number of civilisations that depleted their soil due because they didn’t know (or care) about crop rotation. Stable-state economies which nevertheless collapsed because they missed a key technology.

mallowdram 1y ago

There was more likely a series of 2K-4K golden ages diffused across areas globally 5-1K BCE where stagnation wasn't the rule. We've probably yet to even come close to that eden-like experience.

geysersam 1y ago

> Technology advances rapidly and affects us all, with new products and production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle. This is the basis for sustained economic growth since the end of the 19th century... Am I missing something? How can they assert that the current trajectory of economic growth won't end in stagnation, like every other growth spurt throughout history? Sure, the economic growth of the last 150 years is unprecedented in history. But so was the second most significant period of economic growth before it stagnated.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> How can they assert that the current trajectory of economic growth won't end in stagnation, like every other growth spurt throughout history? Straw man. Nobody argues this.
- geysersam 1y ago
  > production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle > sustained economic growth Is it really such an unreasonable reading?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Is it really such an unreasonable reading? It's reasonable but unnecessarily reductive. Particulalry when TFA is linked above.