4 ms·

> Which isn't necessary, because first, the population is no longer increasing exponentially... The problem you run into there is that for a long time the elde

> Which isn't necessary, because first, the population is no longer increasing exponentially... The problem you run into there is that for a long time the elderly population will be increasing exponentially, and care for the elderly falls on the shoulders of a smaller portion of the population. > the amount of material required to accomplish particular things is decreasing as we find new materials and new ways of using them. This would suggest that capita energy consumption of countries with cutting edge technology is well ahead of per capital energy consumption in countries where people have simpler societies and less manufacturing technologies, right? Is that borne out by numbers and evidence? > Some of them understand that increasing wealth does not have to mean increasing consumption of materials or energy. Please define "wealth."

pdonis 13y ago
for a long time the elderly population will be increasing exponentially Not "for a long time"; for the length of one generation. This would suggest that capita energy consumption of countries with cutting edge technology is well ahead of per capital energy consumption in countries where people have simpler societies and less manufacturing technologies, right? No, because per capita energy consumption depends on how wealthy you are as well as how efficient your technology is. What it does suggest is that per capita energy consumption rises more slowly as a function of wealth than one would expect based on your assumptions about increasing use of resources, and that over time, the per capita energy consumption for some fixed level of wealth will get smaller. Please define "wealth." The best definition I know of is that wealth is choices: the more things you could choose to do with the resources available to you, the wealthier you are. One could also try to factor in some measure of the quality of the choices; for example, Bill Gates and I can both choose to fly somewhere, but he can choose to fly there on a private jet whereas I can only choose to fly on a commercial airliner. But the key is that nothing requires the resources needed to fly somewhere to be constant; as technology improves, the same goal--such as flying somewhere--can be accomplished with fewer and fewer resources. That means the same level of wealth--the same choices--can be achieved with fewer and fewer resources.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > What it does suggest is that per capita energy consumption rises more slowly as a function of wealth than one would expect based on your assumptions about increasing use of resources, and that over time, the per capita energy consumption for some fixed level of wealth will get smaller. I am not sure that works in practice unless one has a lot of resources going to enforce property rights over intangible assets, and unless those rights are the only growth one expects in the economy. The fact is, I may download and play a computer game as a factor of what you call "wealth" (not my definition btw), but as soon as I want to do anything(like go to the store to buy groceries), I have to use energy and materials to do that. Similarly for the video game developer, the FTC regulator, or anyone else possibly involved, to show up to work you have the same questions of materials and energy. What you end up with instead is greater demand for less and less useful products because good materials become more and more expensive. That sounds like inflation to me, not an increase in wealth. I think we are already heading down that spiral. As for a definition of wealth, this may seem old fashioned, but I will paraphrase one of the more insightful definitions I have read: Humans are dependent on material culture since we can't live without clothing or shelter, and tend to have to prepare food in some way. Wealth at its core is a desirable modification to goods and materials in our environment. Wealth is created when we modify something to make it more useful. 0.025% annual growth is still exponential. You can't demand a constant rate of compounding rate of growth without the problem that this demands exhausting all natural resources.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    a constant rate of compounding rate of growth The rate isn't constant; it's decreasing. That's the point. For example, you say it takes energy and materials to go to the store or go to work; but it takes less per person now than it used to. (One obvious example is that lots of people can telework now because we have the Internet, conference calling, etc.; I do that several times a week, saving a significant chunk of energy and materials.) Wealth at its core is a desirable modification to goods and materials in our environment. Which is done for lots of reasons in addition to food, clothing, and shelter. Your definition of wealth is way too narrow. There are plenty of countries where people have food, clothing, and shelter and nothing else. We call those countries "poor" for a reason.

pdonis 13y ago

for a long time the elderly population will be increasing exponentially Not "for a long time"; for the length of one generation. This would suggest that capita energy consumption of countries with cutting edge technology is well ahead of per capital energy consumption in countries where people have simpler societies and less manufacturing technologies, right? No, because per capita energy consumption depends on how wealthy you are as well as how efficient your technology is. What it does suggest is that per capita energy consumption rises more slowly as a function of wealth than one would expect based on your assumptions about increasing use of resources, and that over time, the per capita energy consumption for some fixed level of wealth will get smaller. Please define "wealth." The best definition I know of is that wealth is choices: the more things you could choose to do with the resources available to you, the wealthier you are. One could also try to factor in some measure of the quality of the choices; for example, Bill Gates and I can both choose to fly somewhere, but he can choose to fly there on a private jet whereas I can only choose to fly on a commercial airliner. But the key is that nothing requires the resources needed to fly somewhere to be constant; as technology improves, the same goal--such as flying somewhere--can be accomplished with fewer and fewer resources. That means the same level of wealth--the same choices--can be achieved with fewer and fewer resources.

einhverfr 13y ago
> What it does suggest is that per capita energy consumption rises more slowly as a function of wealth than one would expect based on your assumptions about increasing use of resources, and that over time, the per capita energy consumption for some fixed level of wealth will get smaller. I am not sure that works in practice unless one has a lot of resources going to enforce property rights over intangible assets, and unless those rights are the only growth one expects in the economy. The fact is, I may download and play a computer game as a factor of what you call "wealth" (not my definition btw), but as soon as I want to do anything(like go to the store to buy groceries), I have to use energy and materials to do that. Similarly for the video game developer, the FTC regulator, or anyone else possibly involved, to show up to work you have the same questions of materials and energy. What you end up with instead is greater demand for less and less useful products because good materials become more and more expensive. That sounds like inflation to me, not an increase in wealth. I think we are already heading down that spiral. As for a definition of wealth, this may seem old fashioned, but I will paraphrase one of the more insightful definitions I have read: Humans are dependent on material culture since we can't live without clothing or shelter, and tend to have to prepare food in some way. Wealth at its core is a desirable modification to goods and materials in our environment. Wealth is created when we modify something to make it more useful. 0.025% annual growth is still exponential. You can't demand a constant rate of compounding rate of growth without the problem that this demands exhausting all natural resources.
- pdonis 13y ago
  a constant rate of compounding rate of growth The rate isn't constant; it's decreasing. That's the point. For example, you say it takes energy and materials to go to the store or go to work; but it takes less per person now than it used to. (One obvious example is that lots of people can telework now because we have the Internet, conference calling, etc.; I do that several times a week, saving a significant chunk of energy and materials.) Wealth at its core is a desirable modification to goods and materials in our environment. Which is done for lots of reasons in addition to food, clothing, and shelter. Your definition of wealth is way too narrow. There are plenty of countries where people have food, clothing, and shelter and nothing else. We call those countries "poor" for a reason.