3 ms·

That's zero-sum thinking.

• dllthomas 13y ago
  When resources are fixed, zero-sum (in resources) thinking is appropriate.
  • pdonis 13y ago
    Resources are not fixed. Our planet, our solar system, and our universe are awash in resources. The question is, how much does it cost to extract them, compared to their value once extracted? As technology advances and human ingenuity finds new ways to do things, more and more resources become available at a cost less than their value. That's been happening all through human history, and continues to happen now. Even if particular resources (e.g., oil) turn out to be finite, we find substitutes (e.g., nuclear, solar, or even oil from algae), so that in a practical sense we never run out.
    • dllthomas 13y ago
      There are finite resources in our light cone. Resources are fixed. I said that I didn't expect we were nearing those limits. Quite obviously we aren't nearing that limit, but I don't rule out the possibility that there may be other, more relevant ones.
      • pdonis 13y ago
        There are finite resources in our light cone Actually, if the universe is spatially infinite (which it is according to our best current models), this is not true even if we equate "resources" with "quantity of matter", which is what you are implicitly assuming. However, this implicit assumption is false: what counts as a "resource", i.e., how much of what kind of matter it takes to accomplish a particular goal, is not fixed. It changes as technology and human knowledge changes. In principle there is no lower bound to how much of what kind of matter it can take to accomplish a particular goal, which means that in principle there is no upper bound to the amount of wealth that can be created with a fixed quantity of matter.
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          > There are finite resources in our light cone > Actually, if the universe is spatially infinite (which it is according to our best current models), this is not true If the universe is temporally finite, it is, even if the universe is spatially infinite.
          • pdonis 13y ago
            If the universe is temporally finite This will only be true if the universe is closed, i.e., spatially finite.
            • dllthomas 13y ago
              This seems a bizarre claim. If there is an end to time then even in flat space-time, if the region we can access starts out finite and grows at a finite rate, then when time ends it will have a finite maximum volume.
              • pdonis 13y ago
                If there is an end to time Which, according to the Einstein Field Equation, there can only be if the universe is closed, i.e., finite in size. I wasn't talking about what's conceivable logically; I was talking about what's actually possible, physically, given our best current theories.
                • dllthomas 13y ago
                  Hm, I clearly need some review. In any event, "resources we can access before time T" unequivocally finite, and some needs must be met before time T for any T far enough out that it dramatically changes the resources we have available. Which means that in terms of considering distribution and making sure needs are met, there is a theoretical upper bound on the resources available, and zero-sum thinking would be appropriate once we have allocated enough to some individuals that there is literally not enough for others and have reached limits on improvements in efficiency. As I've said, I'm not at all convinced that we are near either.
  • jpadkins 13y ago
    the only important finite resources in the information age are smart people's time and energy. And even energy will be infinite given enough smart people's time.
    • dllthomas 13y ago
      You haven't made the case, just an assertion. It's certainly a case that can be made. I did not say that I believed us pushing any limits - I said I expected we were not. In the hypothetical where there is a zero-sum game, zero-sum thinking is appropriate - I meant no more than I said.