6 ms·

The growth is unsustainable argument is very strange to me. We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable, but societies choose to go for other t

The growth is unsustainable argument is very strange to me. We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable, but societies choose to go for other things because overall growth and advancement of humanity is not generally a goal at mass individual level. For example, currently society is busy transitioning to electrified transport. Los Angeles had a vast network of that 80+ years ago (red car light rail system). We also have had nuclear power as an option for a very long time. And yet, red cars were scrapped, rail removed, freeways built, we still burn gas and what not for power, and California has a ban on new nuclear… It’s not that we can’t do all this, it’s that for various reasons we choose not to. It’s quite human-centric to assume that all other possible civilizations will make the same choices. It seems more likely that there will be as many choices and value systems as there are possible life sustaining planets out there. This doesn’t answer the paradox of course.

darkerside 2y ago
Perhaps what you view as unique, quirky human behavior is just one manifestation of a common pattern in advanced intelligence. In the long run, most J curves are S curves.
Beijinger 2y ago
"The growth is unsustainable argument is very strange to me. We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable, but societies choose to go for other things because overall growth and advancement of humanity is not generally a goal at mass individual level." Well, it is seventh grade mathematics. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://expatcircle.com/cms/why-the-future-might-hold-trouble-for-us-part-2/ https://expatcircle.com/cms/why-the-future-might-hold-troubl... The limits of growth are real. Very real. And unfortunately, many problems we are seeing might be the prelude to the prediction. "It’s quite human-centric to assume that all other possible civilizations will make the same choices." Well, there should be many and we see none. This is not encouraging. While the best idea to look for life is to look for an entropy source, I think advanced live in space may be similar to us. They would need some kind of sensors (eyes, ears) and likely they would have been predators at one stage in the evolutionary path.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Your first link says that in 400 years, we’ll need a second location to continue growing. And…? I think that actually supports the other person’s view: if your entire argument amounts to “in 400 years, we’ll need to have space stations or settle Mars with nuclear!” that isn’t really an argument against growth now.
  - c22 2y ago
    The link predicts that in 400 years we reach a growth limit at the 100% solar exploitation of earth's entire surface area, so it's likely we'll have to get off planet well before that. It goes on to predict that to maintain > 2.3% annual energy growth for 1350 years from the present time Will require total exploitation of our local star. This is a tight timetable to construct the relevant dyson sphere, even with the associated gains in engineering/construction efficiency and expertise. There are additional cogent arguments that bypassing the solar energy requirement (with e.g. nuclear methods) will pose significant challenges in radiating the waste heat within ~1400 years. These projections are based solely on the rate of growth, so it seems clear that while we may be able to keep growing indefinitely, the rate at which we do so will need to asymptotically approach zero.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      I couldn’t have predicted 2024 from 1624 — so I assume I’m similarly incompetent at forward predictions of 2424. Trying to guess from 1AD what 2024AD would look like would make me sound like I was speaking myths — so again, I have to assume I’m similarly unable to guess at the timeline (4000AD) where we’d run out of galactic solar energy what our existence would be like. There’s nothing in my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s time that would prohibit growth — and I’m okay admitting I lack the wisdom or capability to solve problems on so grand a scale. The links posted bolster my position that the “limits of growth” are irrelevant to me, almost entirely. To the extent that they may impact my great-great-great-great-grandchildren, I think they’ll be better able to handle the troubles of their time with the benefits of a robust economy, vibrant society, and abundant wealth. Nothing you’ve posted suggests that I should try to limit growth or that anyone would benefit from the attempt.
thrance 2y ago
Economic growth, in our current paradigm, requires the production of ever more goods, which in turn requires ever more energy and natural resources. That is unsustainable, because nature is finite. My personal theory is that any advanced civilization that is capable of interstellar travel must have conquered their animal instincts and realized that growth for the sake of growth is pointless.
- sologoub 2y ago
  These are only finite within Earth. Add even modest solar system travel capabilities and a lot more resources open up. Mining asteroids is just one idea there.
  - c22 2y ago
    But not infinite resources. .. If we accept the hypotheses of an expanding universe then we find ourselves in a pickle as our potentially infinite resources race out of our light cone faster than we can chase them.
  - baq 2y ago
    Space is huge, but space is also empty. Mining asteroids is really energetically expensive if you want to get the material back to Earth. It’s a very reasonable thing to do if you want to build stuff in space, though.
  - andsoitis 2y ago
    > a lot more resources open up. Mining asteroids is just one idea there We should certainly explore and hope to discover rich deposits of varied resources that are worth expending the time and energy to find, extract, and use. However, to our knowledge, asteroids probably consist of clay and silicate rocks, some containing nickel-iron[1] [1] https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/facts/ https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/facts/
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
      Hopefully we know more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche by 2029.
foxglacier 2y ago
The idea that we should use finite natural resources more slowly or not at all to be sustainable doesn't make sense. What are we saving them for? Future people who would also uses them unsustainably? If we're sustainable forever, then future people won't need them. If future people do need them, they won't be sustainable and won't last. So why don't we just use them up as fast as we like? Perhaps future people will have some important but finite need for them. So we save them for that one big moment when they're used for the really important purpose that will never be important anymore in the future of the human race? Seems unlikely such a use will appear, at least not one more important than what we've already done in building our industrialized society.
- adrianN 2y ago
  Using finite resources more slowly gives you more time to invent alternatives. Imagine what would've happened if we used up all fossil fuels we had alternatives.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    Peak oil is a good example of scarcity theories diverging from our observations. What happened when the known, easily exploitable oil fields were exploited? Additional exploration was incentivized. New techniques were developed for accessing petroleum resources which were previously unknown or unprofitable. "But scarcity", as an argument should not be deployed where it will hamper further innovation and value creation. Consuming petroleum fuels increases our standard of living and productivity. It is from this comfortable perch of increased productivity that we are able to apply our resources towards finding additional energy sources. Thus far there have not been "Limits to Growth" along this path of natural market incentives. Yet, it is easy to see how fears of scarcity could hamstring the process. The actions driven by these fears could potentially limit growth and manifest the fears into a reality. Scarcity arguments typically have powerful political incentives. Central planners are tasked with determining which uses of energy are 'righteous' or acceptable. Some have even suggested that carbon credits be issued as a new form of currency. Move over petro-dollar, there's a new sheriff in town. Permission slips to consume energy, gatekept by our betters, the benevolent central planners. https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/ https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/
patcon 2y ago
> We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable No, respectfully, we don't. Every organism that succeeds in doing what you advocate for (growing "sustainably") is swept from the record. If life doesn't cycle (grow/shrink) or otherwise live in equilibria, life exhausts its niche on any meaningful timescale, and the universe sends it into oblivion. Perhaps interestingly, even records of "successfully" growing are purged, because the most effective thing that persists records of life on long timescales is the descendant path of the life itself (whether that's specific DNA sequences maintained as mutational clocks by cellular machinery, or libraries of books and concepts maintained by specific civilisations), and uncapped growth collapses the informational diversity required for life to thrive and persist -- by which I mean that we, as continuously persisting living biological and cultural structures, are the best evidence of living things like us existing a million or a thousand years ago. When the lineage dies, evidence of the experiment rapidly decays, compared to actually successful experiments that refrain from growth and collapse of their ecology. Only DNA/culture that doesn't "succeed" in growing beyond its resources survives on a significant timescale. When an overly zealous strain of life grows too much and fails, evidence of that life is swiftly and rapidly purged as well, for any later life that cares to try to look.
- theamk 2y ago
  I don't why biological limitations restrict humanity's long-term future. We are already ignoring them - right now it's freezing outside, and no human could not survive in such weather using biology alone. I am also living in a city which is way too dense to sustain natural human society. There is always a risk of entire species dying out, for example via global war, or everyone suddenly deciding they don't want technology and then freezing to death in the winter; but there are no universal long-term limitations. At some moment there will be independent colonies at other worlds, and then humanity will be eternal.

darkerside 2y ago

Perhaps what you view as unique, quirky human behavior is just one manifestation of a common pattern in advanced intelligence. In the long run, most J curves are S curves.

Beijinger 2y ago

"The growth is unsustainable argument is very strange to me. We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable, but societies choose to go for other things because overall growth and advancement of humanity is not generally a goal at mass individual level." Well, it is seventh grade mathematics. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://expatcircle.com/cms/why-the-future-might-hold-trouble-for-us-part-2/ https://expatcircle.com/cms/why-the-future-might-hold-troubl... The limits of growth are real. Very real. And unfortunately, many problems we are seeing might be the prelude to the prediction. "It’s quite human-centric to assume that all other possible civilizations will make the same choices." Well, there should be many and we see none. This is not encouraging. While the best idea to look for life is to look for an entropy source, I think advanced live in space may be similar to us. They would need some kind of sensors (eyes, ears) and likely they would have been predators at one stage in the evolutionary path.

zmgsabst 2y ago
Your first link says that in 400 years, we’ll need a second location to continue growing. And…? I think that actually supports the other person’s view: if your entire argument amounts to “in 400 years, we’ll need to have space stations or settle Mars with nuclear!” that isn’t really an argument against growth now.
- c22 2y ago
  The link predicts that in 400 years we reach a growth limit at the 100% solar exploitation of earth's entire surface area, so it's likely we'll have to get off planet well before that. It goes on to predict that to maintain > 2.3% annual energy growth for 1350 years from the present time Will require total exploitation of our local star. This is a tight timetable to construct the relevant dyson sphere, even with the associated gains in engineering/construction efficiency and expertise. There are additional cogent arguments that bypassing the solar energy requirement (with e.g. nuclear methods) will pose significant challenges in radiating the waste heat within ~1400 years. These projections are based solely on the rate of growth, so it seems clear that while we may be able to keep growing indefinitely, the rate at which we do so will need to asymptotically approach zero.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    I couldn’t have predicted 2024 from 1624 — so I assume I’m similarly incompetent at forward predictions of 2424. Trying to guess from 1AD what 2024AD would look like would make me sound like I was speaking myths — so again, I have to assume I’m similarly unable to guess at the timeline (4000AD) where we’d run out of galactic solar energy what our existence would be like. There’s nothing in my grandchildren’s grandchildren’s time that would prohibit growth — and I’m okay admitting I lack the wisdom or capability to solve problems on so grand a scale. The links posted bolster my position that the “limits of growth” are irrelevant to me, almost entirely. To the extent that they may impact my great-great-great-great-grandchildren, I think they’ll be better able to handle the troubles of their time with the benefits of a robust economy, vibrant society, and abundant wealth. Nothing you’ve posted suggests that I should try to limit growth or that anyone would benefit from the attempt.

thrance 2y ago

Economic growth, in our current paradigm, requires the production of ever more goods, which in turn requires ever more energy and natural resources. That is unsustainable, because nature is finite. My personal theory is that any advanced civilization that is capable of interstellar travel must have conquered their animal instincts and realized that growth for the sake of growth is pointless.

sologoub 2y ago
These are only finite within Earth. Add even modest solar system travel capabilities and a lot more resources open up. Mining asteroids is just one idea there.
- c22 2y ago
  But not infinite resources. .. If we accept the hypotheses of an expanding universe then we find ourselves in a pickle as our potentially infinite resources race out of our light cone faster than we can chase them.
- baq 2y ago
  Space is huge, but space is also empty. Mining asteroids is really energetically expensive if you want to get the material back to Earth. It’s a very reasonable thing to do if you want to build stuff in space, though.
- andsoitis 2y ago
  > a lot more resources open up. Mining asteroids is just one idea there We should certainly explore and hope to discover rich deposits of varied resources that are worth expending the time and energy to find, extract, and use. However, to our knowledge, asteroids probably consist of clay and silicate rocks, some containing nickel-iron[1] [1] https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/facts/ https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/facts/
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    Hopefully we know more about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche by 2029.

foxglacier 2y ago

The idea that we should use finite natural resources more slowly or not at all to be sustainable doesn't make sense. What are we saving them for? Future people who would also uses them unsustainably? If we're sustainable forever, then future people won't need them. If future people do need them, they won't be sustainable and won't last. So why don't we just use them up as fast as we like? Perhaps future people will have some important but finite need for them. So we save them for that one big moment when they're used for the really important purpose that will never be important anymore in the future of the human race? Seems unlikely such a use will appear, at least not one more important than what we've already done in building our industrialized society.

adrianN 2y ago
Using finite resources more slowly gives you more time to invent alternatives. Imagine what would've happened if we used up all fossil fuels we had alternatives.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  Peak oil is a good example of scarcity theories diverging from our observations. What happened when the known, easily exploitable oil fields were exploited? Additional exploration was incentivized. New techniques were developed for accessing petroleum resources which were previously unknown or unprofitable. "But scarcity", as an argument should not be deployed where it will hamper further innovation and value creation. Consuming petroleum fuels increases our standard of living and productivity. It is from this comfortable perch of increased productivity that we are able to apply our resources towards finding additional energy sources. Thus far there have not been "Limits to Growth" along this path of natural market incentives. Yet, it is easy to see how fears of scarcity could hamstring the process. The actions driven by these fears could potentially limit growth and manifest the fears into a reality. Scarcity arguments typically have powerful political incentives. Central planners are tasked with determining which uses of energy are 'righteous' or acceptable. Some have even suggested that carbon credits be issued as a new form of currency. Move over petro-dollar, there's a new sheriff in town. Permission slips to consume energy, gatekept by our betters, the benevolent central planners. https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/ https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/

patcon 2y ago

> We absolutely have the technology to make growth sustainable No, respectfully, we don't. Every organism that succeeds in doing what you advocate for (growing "sustainably") is swept from the record. If life doesn't cycle (grow/shrink) or otherwise live in equilibria, life exhausts its niche on any meaningful timescale, and the universe sends it into oblivion. Perhaps interestingly, even records of "successfully" growing are purged, because the most effective thing that persists records of life on long timescales is the descendant path of the life itself (whether that's specific DNA sequences maintained as mutational clocks by cellular machinery, or libraries of books and concepts maintained by specific civilisations), and uncapped growth collapses the informational diversity required for life to thrive and persist -- by which I mean that we, as continuously persisting living biological and cultural structures, are the best evidence of living things like us existing a million or a thousand years ago. When the lineage dies, evidence of the experiment rapidly decays, compared to actually successful experiments that refrain from growth and collapse of their ecology. Only DNA/culture that doesn't "succeed" in growing beyond its resources survives on a significant timescale. When an overly zealous strain of life grows too much and fails, evidence of that life is swiftly and rapidly purged as well, for any later life that cares to try to look.

theamk 2y ago
I don't why biological limitations restrict humanity's long-term future. We are already ignoring them - right now it's freezing outside, and no human could not survive in such weather using biology alone. I am also living in a city which is way too dense to sustain natural human society. There is always a risk of entire species dying out, for example via global war, or everyone suddenly deciding they don't want technology and then freezing to death in the winter; but there are no universal long-term limitations. At some moment there will be independent colonies at other worlds, and then humanity will be eternal.