Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Continuous growth is cancer

christianheilmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#81

Post by danaris »

trilbyglens wrote: post #67
gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Growth is not inherently good, uncontrolled growth is certainly not. That's a nice soundbite, but what does that translate into in terms of actual policy? Do we cap growth at 2% or whatever and call it a day?

What it looks like is putting far more regulation in place surrounding hiring and employee protections. Layoffs have not hit Europe to the same extent largely because it's slower and more cumbersome to hire and fire, so employers are naturally more cautious. In the US you can hire and fire at will, so why be cautious? If companies were required to give 2 months notice like they are in many EU countries you bet your a…

I dare say it also looks like antitrust with teeth, abandoning the morally and intellectually bankrupt Chicago school approach (basically, "antitrust only needs to consider harm in the form of increased prices to the consumer"), and reversing the burden of proof on mergers (at least over a certain size), so that instead of having to prove harm to block them, the companies have to prove a genuine benefit in order to merge.

Now, granted, growth in the size of a company is only one form of growth, and this wouldn't be sufficient to stop the "ever-increasing growth at all costs" mindset that's infected our corporate culture, but it is a necessary step.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#82

Post by danaris »

corbulo wrote: post #59
kilgnad wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative way. A simpler life. The term for it is called equilibrium. It's not a bad way of life. It's very hollywoody but essentially the movie Avatar is sort of a window the essential nature of what a…

How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?

> How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation?

It's a matter of perspective.

If one sees one's own growth as an axiomatic good, then of course equilibrium will look like stagnation and the first step to death.

If, instead, one sees oneself as one part of a greater whole, all of which deserves consideration and has a place, equilibrium starts to look like a natural goal and a place of respect for everyone.

And your argument that we would throw away new technologies because they disrupt an equilibrium is a strawman; no one is suggesting that. "Technological progress" and "unconstrained growth" are not synonymous.

Let me turn this around on you and ask you this:

What is the ultimate goal of your unending growth?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#83

Post by op00to »

spoiler wrote: post #78
op00to wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who dealt with a rabbit infestation, there is no natural equilibrium.

Can you provide more context on this? I have so many questions It probably wasn't a funny experience for you, but this made me laugh.

Infestation is a strong term. It seems like every few years there's a combination of factors that somehow create a bumper crop of bunnies in my yard. We'll go from normally seeing a few early morning or evening to having 4-5 bunnies hopping around all the time. Which is pretty cool, all things considered as long as you treat your property for ticks and whatnot. By the next year, though, it'd be back to just a few bunnies. Maybe there's not nearly enough food to support the extra bunnies through the winter.

I saw a bald eagle over my house for the first time the other day (NE US). I wonder if the bunny situation will change with more predators.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#84

Post by kilgnad »

xupybd wrote: post #68
kilgnad wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Life looks a lot like cancer. Cancer looks a lot like life. "Being cancer" isn't a bad thing, cancer is only bad when it is a disease in humans. Otherwise it is the way of the world. We are surrounded by patterns that propagate themselves quickly. You lack holistic understanding of the science behind life and what cancer is. I will explain. And once I'm done, you should understand. First off most energy on earth com…

>You lack holistic understanding of the science behind life and what cancer is. I will explain. And once I'm done, you should understand I think you're being unfair in your response. "Life looks a lot like cancer" can be true and life and cancer can be totally different. They only need to look like each other. I'd also be careful to ever invoke the term "the science".

No, the guy didn't get it. He was using the analogy completely incorrectly. There is nothing unfair about my response, he simply wasn't getting it.

I'm quite well versed in not only the science behind natural selection, but in the philosophy of science as well. This tippy toe "carefulness" about using the word is unnecessary and made up by you. There is a colloquial meaning for science that is used casually all the time and everybody knows what it means without the need for "carefulness".

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#85

Post by kilgnad »

corbulo wrote: post #59
kilgnad wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growth itself is not cancer. Growth that never ends is cancer, because it eventually consumes all available resources in the system. I mean this is raw inescapable logic, there's no argument against this. There's an alternative way. A simpler life. The term for it is called equilibrium. It's not a bad way of life. It's very hollywoody but essentially the movie Avatar is sort of a window the essential nature of what a…

How exactly is equilibrium different from stagnation? If someone comes up with a new technology that will give us the ability to colonize the galaxy, or quantum teleport, or have years long battery life, should it be thrown away for being too disruptive to the 'equilibrium'?

The difference is in vocabulary. Stagnation and equilibrium are the same thing only in one word the definition has positive connotations, in the other word the vocabulary had negative connotations. No point in arguing about vocabulary and connotations.

If cancer stagnates though... That's typically a good thing.

All the technologies you mentioned are kinda far flung and/or roughly orthogonal to the issue at hand: resource consumption as the result of growth. Humanity should 100 percent be mindful of resource consumption in such a way that they don't burn out all available resources.

So to put it bluntly these are your choices using your words: you can grow uncontrollably until you die like cancer or you can stay in "stagnation" forever and live.

The choice is quite obvious.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#86

Post by pas »

number6 wrote: post #45
germinalphrase wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I will explain. And once I'm done, you should understand.” A new HN catchphrase.

I like how the phrase shift the guilt to the reader if he does not understand.

why is there guilt in simply not knowing something?

presumably the less knowledgeable commenters are not responsible for policy, it's not their moral duty to know this? (even if arguably we as a species are the only ones with agency to act to keep ourselves from overexploitation of the natural resources and from falling into sociological traps, and thus we all are partially responsible individually, and in many ethics it's our duty to keep ourselves informed to be able to pick representatives/leaders and to vote with our wallets)

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#87

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

From a 'conversation between a physicist and an economist' [0] discussing the limits of growth:

Physicist: Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.

[0] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#88

Post by Paradigma11 »

waffletower wrote: post #50

“I´d like to share a revelation that I´ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way can survive is t…

Nope, just nope:

https://kids.britannica.com/students/assembly/view/108152

https://macleans.ca/society/lemming-population-cycle-explana...

This is nature.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#89

Post by kilgnad »

pas wrote: post #86
number6 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how the phrase shift the guilt to the reader if he does not understand.

why is there guilt in simply not knowing something? presumably the less knowledgeable commenters are not responsible for policy, it's not their moral duty to know this? (even if arguably we as a species are the only ones with agency to act to keep ourselves from overexploitation of the natural resources and from falling into sociological traps, and thus we all are partially responsible individually, and in many ethic…

You don't get it. Let me explain. And when I'm done explaining you will understand.

He means the reader will feel guilty for not understanding rather then blaming me for his lack of understanding due to a poorly worded explanation.

Either I'm guilty of a bad explanation or he's guilty of being too stupid to understand. Which is it?

By declaring beforehand the fact that he will understand as a consequence of the explanation I subtly connote that if such understanding isn't achieved then the problem isn't my explanation.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#90

Post by kilgnad »

xupybd wrote: post #69
gruez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even without questioning the capitalist obsession for infinite growth (despite finite resources and markets), Seeing how communist regimes aren't exactly practicing degrowth, I think it's more accurate to say it's a human obsession. >we should not have had the practice of hiring more than is essential to run the business. Who thought it was a good idea to make a success metric out of headcount? Ostensibly companies…

I think North Korea is doing a good job of limiting growth. Not as a determined goal of their communism but as a result of their corruption, totalitarian control and incompetence. Still credit where credit is due. They are not growing as fast as their capitalist brothers to the south.

The world will become a north Korea if unchecked growth continues unchecked.

When cancer is growing the tumor is healthy and happy. It's when the tumor consumes all available resources and begins dying that it becomes a problem.

We are currently in the growth phase of a tumor. The dying phase is for your children or your children's children. Or your children's children's children. We are not sure when it will happen, we only know that it will through logic.

Post reply on HN