Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NZT48

Government exists to protect liberty, not to provide services or redistribute wealth.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Leonid said:

If there isn’t a colony on Mars by 2040, I’ll eat my own balding head.

 

i'll settle for you eating scomo's balding head

 

3 hours ago, Cybes said:

Unlike you to troll, Scruffy.

 

 

yeah, sorry, i'm a bit tired (and completely unimpressed by the concept of economy, which i find to be a very poor approximation of what money actually seems to do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

completely unimpressed by the concept of economy, which i find to be a very poor approximation of what money actually seems to do

 

...Perhaps we're discussing different things, then - or at least, different facets of the same thing.  I am not using it like "the Economy" in officious governmental tones, as if there was a formal construct - I'm just referring to the fact that money (or value) flows, and not how/why/when it does or the impacts of that flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cybes said:

Even if you posit the discovery of FTL drives and planetary mining so that you can harness the entire quantity of the observable universe (which is beyond ludicrous), those *are* limited - just in exceedingly large quantities.

 

The problem is you’re tying economy to resource gathering.

 

The way we posit economic growth is increase in the value of real GDP. There are two ways to do that: quantity and quality. Quantity is best described as the oil economy. Very little efficiency has been gained in efficiency of primary products derived from crude.

 

But then there’s quality: using resources we’ve been able to produce tech that exponentially increases tech development. For example, normal oil produced the machines that has unlocked shale oil for extraction. We’ve unlocked resources. Same as we’re doing in space. 

 

In other instances we consume tiny resources to massively increase economic activity and open new economies. Think about what ARM has done for the world. The entire fields of IoT, ML, AI...

 

Lastly a heck of a lot of diversification in our economies has come from services which barely consume physical resources - and probably do so at below replacement rates. Think education, coaching, content creation, etc.

 

While it’s probably correct that there’s a finite number of resources in the universes, we are getting stupidly better at using them and are getting closer to being able to harness them.

 

Infinite economic growth should be possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Leonid said:

The problem is you’re tying economy to resource gathering.

 

Where do you think stuff comes from, Leo - magic?  Your TV, computer, fridge, washing machine, clothes, your food ffs...  If you want to have/use anything material, that material has to be sourced.  You can recycle to some extent currently, and that will get better, but it will never be 100% while entropy rules the universe - and an expanding population will want more stuff anyway.

 

Oh, and one more thing... The universe itself has an expiry date. Even in the extremely unlikely event that humanity's far descendants are still around by then, there is NO amount of growth that can make that an infinite.

Edited by Cybes
Addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Cybes said:

Where do you think stuff comes from, Leo - magic?  Your TV, computer, fridge, washing machine, clothes, your food ffs...  If you want to have/use anything material, that material has to be sourced.

 

What about the film I make with the computer? What about the vegetarian laksa I sell in my neighbourhood and store in my fridge, while using the Internet to advertise? 

 

You don't seem to be understanding the core logic - our technology is making new economies at breakneck pace from already-manufactured goods. If you look at what we could do with a few kg of plastic, silicon and oil 30 years ago, vs what we can do now and the secondary uses thereof - you'd understand my point. 

 

1 hour ago, Cybes said:

and an expanding population will want more stuff anyway.

 

That's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people now who don't own cars because of the sharing economy.

 

1 hour ago, Cybes said:

The universe itself has an expiry date.

 

Does it? What date is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

What about the film I make with the computer? What about the vegetarian laksa I sell in my neighbourhood and store in my fridge, while using the Internet to advertise? 

 

You don't seem to be understanding the core logic - our technology is making new economies at breakneck pace from already-manufactured goods. If you look at what we could do with a few kg of plastic, silicon and oil 30 years ago, vs what we can do now and the secondary uses thereof - you'd understand my point. 

 

 

That's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people now who don't own cars because of the sharing economy.

 

 

Does it? What date is that?

 

No clipping - on phone.

 

That film requires a computer - which needs materials.

 

The internet needs a huge number of computers, and a telecoms system, and power generation.

 

*Everything* at some point depends on material inputs.  If your source of those is tapped out, growth of everything else stops too.

 

Reuse is grand, but things break. Recycling is excellent, but will never be 100% efficient.  It's just plain physics: you can't win; you can't break even - it's just a matter of how badly you lose.

 

This is why I'm very much in favour of asteroid mining.  It still won't make anything infinite, but there'll be a lot more finite to play with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

What about the film I make with the computer? What about the vegetarian laksa I sell in my neighbourhood and store in my fridge, while using the Internet to advertise? 

 

You don't seem to be understanding the core logic - our technology is making new economies at breakneck pace from already-manufactured goods. If you look at what we could do with a few kg of plastic, silicon and oil 30 years ago, vs what we can do now and the secondary uses thereof - you'd understand my point. 

 

 

That's not necessarily the case. There are plenty of people now who don't own cars because of the sharing economy.

 

 

Does it? What date is that?

 

the microplastic residues we create, and flushed down the loo pharmacopoeia - will both render the populace subfertile and somewhat mitigate the need for "exponential growth

 

our technology isn't able to even make plastic witout consequences, and certainly not out of thin air

 

 

the "sharing economy" is riding on the back of early adopter hipster types who need a new i-thing more often than i  buy clothes

 

and yes, the universe is going to run out of resources, but well after humanity is either fried by our sun going rogue, or likely way earlier by either asteroid strike, or the pollutants alluded to in my first line of reply, or some catastrophic epidemic potentiated by climate change and global travel spreading it worldwide before recognising the index case

 

 

we'll all likely be dead well before that time, but quite possibly not - certainly our grandkids might get to see a pandemic cull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Leo, maybe you'd like go hang out on that Mars colony, and catch a few cosmic rays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

Hey Leo, maybe you'd like go hang out on that Mars colony, and catch a few cosmic rays. 

 

As long as the ship is on a solar landing mission and you’re the lucky first man on the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cybes said:

That film requires a computer - which needs materials.

 

Without doubt. But we are using less materials to create more powerful computers that can do more.

 

2 hours ago, Cybes said:

The internet needs a huge number of computers, and a telecoms system, and power generation.

 

Same as above 🙂

 

2 hours ago, Cybes said:

*Everything* at some point depends on material inputs.  If your source of those is tapped out, growth of everything else stops too.

 

 

Not entirely true actually 🙂

 

Economic resources are defined in terms of human and non-human components. In certain industries, ie tele-education, the existence of the computer can be assigned to other economic outputs as well, meaning that  (again going back to my point), we do a shitload more, with a lot less than we used to.

 

2 hours ago, Cybes said:

Reuse is grand, but things break. Recycling is excellent, but will never be 100% efficient.  It's just plain physics: you can't win; you can't break even - it's just a matter of how badly you lose.

 

 

Or whether you can get your consumption below natural replacement levels. IE, there's sustainable plantation-grown timber, pine - or recycled/reclaimed timbers.

 

2 hours ago, Cybes said:

This is why I'm very much in favour of asteroid mining.  It still won't make anything infinite, but there'll be a lot more finite to play with.

 

And that's kind of what I'm getting to. By definition the universe is infinite or so huge that it's finite size is beyond all reasonable limits - we won't have time to mine it all before we SNAFU ourselves out of existence.

 

Probably through Space Communism. Because that shit isn't just designed for misery on Earth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cybes said:

The universe itself has an expiry date.

 

10 hours ago, Leonid said:

Does it? What date is that?

 

Forgot to answer this at the time.  It a little thing called Heat Death - you may have heard of it.  It's stupidly far off, but it's a definitive end point.

 

Come to think of it, life will be impossible (at least in any physical form) well before that.  Every element is a little bit radioactive - they all spontaneously spit out part of themselves once in a while.  Sometimes, that's an incredibly long time; Xenon 124 has a half-life of 18 sextillion (1.8x10^22, or 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) years, for example.  But in the long run, everything ends up as iron (56-Fe).  Iron does not react with itself, fuse or fission - the only thing you can do with only pure iron is make neutron stars and black holes.  That does not include fleshy bodies, or suns to warm them by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cybes said:

 

 

Forgot to answer this at the time.  It a little thing called Heat Death - you may have heard of it.  It's stupidly far off, but it's a definitive end point.

 

Come to think of it, life will be impossible (at least in any physical form) well before that.  Every element is a little bit radioactive - they all spontaneously spit out part of themselves once in a while.  Sometimes, that's an incredibly long time; Xenon 124 has a half-life of 18 sextillion (1.8x10^22, or 18,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) years, for example.  But in the long run, everything ends up as iron (56-Fe).  Iron does not react with itself, fuse or fission - the only thing you can do with only pure iron is make neutron stars and black holes.  That does not include fleshy bodies, or suns to warm them by.

 

Right. So we best define it as - our economy is effectively infinite to the point where we no longer need an economy.

 

(And there might be other universes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Leonid said:

effectively infinite

 

Um, no.  That's a very important thing you're happy to gloss over, there: if you wait until Heat Death, reboot the universe from Big Bang, and wait for that one to die as well, you're still precisely as far from infinity as you are now.

 

21 minutes ago, Leonid said:

(And there might be other universes)

 

It is a near certainty by currently-leading models that there *are* other universes - probably an infinite number of them.  Getting to one from here would require the entire mass-conversion energy of this universe, so... Not really doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine. I'm happy with an infinitely incalculable economy until the Heat Death of the Universe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 7:42 PM, Leonid said:

As long as the ship is on a solar landing mission and you’re the lucky first man on the sun.

 

No, seriously, honky. You're keen on a Mars colony; you don't think the lack of a magnetosphere isn't an insurmountable issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kimmo said:

 

No, seriously, honky. You're keen on a Mars colony; you don't think the lack of a magnetosphere isn't an insurmountable issue? 

 

Ahem.  Choose your words carefully, Kimmo.  We've been to the Moon. "Insurmountable" problems have a tendency to get addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kimmo said:

 

No, seriously, honky. You're keen on a Mars colony; you don't think the lack of a magnetosphere isn't an insurmountable issue? 

 

... there is not much yet of anything we've found that is insurmountable.

 

We just haven't worked out the science of it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×