9 ms·

Interesting read, I love to see contrarian views on automation. I'm really tired of seeing poorly thought out rants from techno-prophets predicting unbounded ex

Interesting read, I love to see contrarian views on automation. I'm really tired of seeing poorly thought out rants from techno-prophets predicting unbounded exponential growth when economic growth is stagnating globally.

justonepost 11y ago
Unbounded exponential growth is possible, but we have to redefine the rules of capitalism. For example, rewarding those who actually advance our economies versus those who just play with numbers in stock markets.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hebdo 11y ago
  Given that any resouce you can think of is bounded, no, it is impossible.
  - netcan 11y ago
    Bounded theoretically, yes. But the boundary can be so far away that it doesn't matter. Take energy. Oil & coal are certainly bounded, either by available deposits to mine or the environmental effects of burning them. But energy can come from solar, wind, nuclear and other sources. It's possible that 200 years from now, we'll have hit a wall on energy, but it's also possible that we'll have increased our energy consumption by orders of magnitude. Other than that, I think it's hard to think of economic growth for periods longer than a few generations. When economists say that a dollar in 2015 is worth $X in 1066 and we are Y% richer, that's a very leaky metaphor. It's basically saying that a sheep or a loaf of bread cost x in 1066 and people made z every day and if we take our daily salary and divide it by loaves of bread and sheep then we don't really have to consider that we buy ipods and toothpaste and they bought slaves and mutton. It's just nonsensical to try and represent it quantitatively. So economic growth in the long term is hard to think about in numbers. Say a vaccine for cancer, alzheimer's & diabetes was invented tomorrow. You would be willing to pay money for that and glad of the opportunity. That's economic growth. The researchers uses lithium in their laptops and fossil fuel to keep the lights on, but still I don't think natural resources will bound this kind of thing.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Keep in mind that we're talking about exponential growth which by definition means that in every step you consume more than in all of history combined. So today the boundary can be very far away, and it will stay so until suddenly you hit it and then act surprised. "Increasing our energy consumption by orders of magnitude" means that in 200 years we'll eat the sun, and in the next 200 years we'll swallow the galaxy (actually we won't, thanks to the speed of light limit, but I guess we'd be indistinguishable from a universe-destroying ever-expanding shockwave). We really do have to slow down at some point, exponential growth is not sustainable. Also, the primary problem is not really the growth itself, but the need for it that is built into the basic assumptions of economy - because if and when we'll eventually hit a speedbump, everything will collapse.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Exponential growth can be much smaller than that. For instance, 1% growth is exponential (as is 0.01% growth, and so on). In the case of 1% growth the second interval is larger than the first, but the third is not larger than the first and second combined (it's still roughly 1/2 that).
        dllthomas 11y ago
        Exponential growth does mean that there exists some interval length over which the function doubles regardless of your point in the curve. It's certainly true that it won't be true for all interval lengths - that is obviously mathematically nonsensical.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > that is obviously mathematically nonsensical. In a finite universe, yes, it is clearly nonsense. Exponential growth cannot continue forever in a finite universe, no matter how small the growth constant.
        11y ago
  - justonepost 11y ago
    If you want to define our economy and GDP in terms of consuming, yeah, we're screwed. I think there are more enlightened ways of looking at things. Like security, free time, good health, educated and artistic people, etc.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
There isn't going to be an unbounded exponential growth, and every techno-prophet knows it (as opposed to armchair economists) - if we keep basing our economy on endless growth, everything will go to hell when we hit the natural limits.
- netcan 11y ago
  What are the natural limits? Do you mean natural resources?
  - hebdo 11y ago
    Yes, for example. Any resource you can think of. Be creative: unbounded exponential growth would mean, for instance, that at some point in the future the global yearly energy consumption would be higher than what E=mc^2 suggests for m=mass of the earth.
    - nickff 11y ago
      You're implicitly assuming that all human energy consumption takes place on planet Earth.
      - qu4z-2 11y ago
        Or at least in the universe, which seems like a fair assumption for now.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Natural resources, Earth's capacity to sustain our growth, and later on, speed of light (unless we break the FTL, there's only so fast we can expand our economy). Every exponential growth in physical world (as opposed to mathematical theory) has a limit at some point.
- georgeecollins 11y ago
  That's a very old idea (1798) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe (1972) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
refurb 11y ago
when economic growth is stagnating globally Huh? The world's economy has grown by over 50% since 2000.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

justonepost 11y ago

Unbounded exponential growth is possible, but we have to redefine the rules of capitalism. For example, rewarding those who actually advance our economies versus those who just play with numbers in stock markets.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hebdo 11y ago
Given that any resouce you can think of is bounded, no, it is impossible.
- netcan 11y ago
  Bounded theoretically, yes. But the boundary can be so far away that it doesn't matter. Take energy. Oil & coal are certainly bounded, either by available deposits to mine or the environmental effects of burning them. But energy can come from solar, wind, nuclear and other sources. It's possible that 200 years from now, we'll have hit a wall on energy, but it's also possible that we'll have increased our energy consumption by orders of magnitude. Other than that, I think it's hard to think of economic growth for periods longer than a few generations. When economists say that a dollar in 2015 is worth $X in 1066 and we are Y% richer, that's a very leaky metaphor. It's basically saying that a sheep or a loaf of bread cost x in 1066 and people made z every day and if we take our daily salary and divide it by loaves of bread and sheep then we don't really have to consider that we buy ipods and toothpaste and they bought slaves and mutton. It's just nonsensical to try and represent it quantitatively. So economic growth in the long term is hard to think about in numbers. Say a vaccine for cancer, alzheimer's & diabetes was invented tomorrow. You would be willing to pay money for that and glad of the opportunity. That's economic growth. The researchers uses lithium in their laptops and fossil fuel to keep the lights on, but still I don't think natural resources will bound this kind of thing.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Keep in mind that we're talking about exponential growth which by definition means that in every step you consume more than in all of history combined. So today the boundary can be very far away, and it will stay so until suddenly you hit it and then act surprised. "Increasing our energy consumption by orders of magnitude" means that in 200 years we'll eat the sun, and in the next 200 years we'll swallow the galaxy (actually we won't, thanks to the speed of light limit, but I guess we'd be indistinguishable from a universe-destroying ever-expanding shockwave). We really do have to slow down at some point, exponential growth is not sustainable. Also, the primary problem is not really the growth itself, but the need for it that is built into the basic assumptions of economy - because if and when we'll eventually hit a speedbump, everything will collapse.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Exponential growth can be much smaller than that. For instance, 1% growth is exponential (as is 0.01% growth, and so on). In the case of 1% growth the second interval is larger than the first, but the third is not larger than the first and second combined (it's still roughly 1/2 that).
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        Exponential growth does mean that there exists some interval length over which the function doubles regardless of your point in the curve. It's certainly true that it won't be true for all interval lengths - that is obviously mathematically nonsensical.
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > that is obviously mathematically nonsensical. In a finite universe, yes, it is clearly nonsense. Exponential growth cannot continue forever in a finite universe, no matter how small the growth constant.
        11y ago
- justonepost 11y ago
  If you want to define our economy and GDP in terms of consuming, yeah, we're screwed. I think there are more enlightened ways of looking at things. Like security, free time, good health, educated and artistic people, etc.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

There isn't going to be an unbounded exponential growth, and every techno-prophet knows it (as opposed to armchair economists) - if we keep basing our economy on endless growth, everything will go to hell when we hit the natural limits.

netcan 11y ago
What are the natural limits? Do you mean natural resources?
- hebdo 11y ago
  Yes, for example. Any resource you can think of. Be creative: unbounded exponential growth would mean, for instance, that at some point in the future the global yearly energy consumption would be higher than what E=mc^2 suggests for m=mass of the earth.
  - nickff 11y ago
    You're implicitly assuming that all human energy consumption takes place on planet Earth.
    - qu4z-2 11y ago
      Or at least in the universe, which seems like a fair assumption for now.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Natural resources, Earth's capacity to sustain our growth, and later on, speed of light (unless we break the FTL, there's only so fast we can expand our economy). Every exponential growth in physical world (as opposed to mathematical theory) has a limit at some point.
georgeecollins 11y ago
That's a very old idea (1798) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe (1972) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

refurb 11y ago

when economic growth is stagnating globally Huh? The world's economy has grown by over 50% since 2000.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product