Live data from Hacker News

Continuous growth is cancer

christianheilmann.com

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#101
post #92
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

One should not confuse growth as in producing more and more stuff with growth as in progress. Of course you can't produce more stuff ad infinitum. A balance to reach net-zero stuff is necessary to be sustainable. But nothing prevents you from advancing technology ad infinitum. It can be sustainable to keep progressing. You just can't exhaust the resources around you, but you don't have to to keep progressing.

No. Technology production requires an energy input. It's fundamental physics. Reversing entropy requires an energy input, and technology is essentially entropy reversing.

At the more scientific level you can see this occurring by simply correlating energy expenditure per country per capita with the technological achievements of the respective country. Western countries are among the top energy users and technology developers.

The only good thing about technology is it's relatively low rate of decay... or in essence low rate of velocity in the descent back into a high entropy state. Knowledge once gained is kept with minimal additional energy input. But make no mistake, the crystallization of knowledge itself requires a high energy input.

Transfer and translations of these technologies also requires energy input which explains why technology doesn't easily cross certain physical boundaries like the borders between countries.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#102
post #4
post #2

[flagged]

> First, the war has had very little appreciable effect on the stock market. This is personal politics injection. Your average westerner would probably go on living their life with a steady 7% return if the news media didn't constantly shove the war going on down our throats. This war is actually important both geopolitically and economically. Ukraine is a major food producer and the even the smallest changes in glob…

It's not misinformed at all. The US's involvement in the Ukraine war is strictly along party lines. The Biden's have been involved in Ukraine at nearly every level for decades now. There are several high profile politicians in the US with ties to Ukranian companies. We flew a Ukranian flag in our congress. That should tell you everything.

There is not a "war" except one caused by politicians. The price eggs and gasoline in the US are not a function of this war. I could not care less and I certainly do not want to send our boys to die for a politician's dirty laundry. Whatever happens over there is a problem of the EU, not mine, and not anyone I care about. Being a "good global citizen" is pointless agitprop from BlackRock ESG. My life is already too complicated. It would be wise of us to not go about pissing off nuclear powers especially when the US is as fundamentally weak both in the spirit of what it stands for and leadership as it is today. Eisenhower tried to warn us and none of us listened.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#103

“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…

No it does not. No mammal develops a natural instinct to flow into an equilibrium.

What is happening is natural selection is operating on a more macro scale. Ecosystems can be naturally selected out or in.

Ecosystems where the individual components do not function in equilibrium overload and die out. The only thing you have left are ecosystems with "mammals" that happen to be in equilibrium.

The minute you introduce a foreign species into a new ecosystem you break the system by introducing a variable that has a positive feedback loop. The ecosystem either overloads or humans can intervene by apply negative pressure (ie manual culling by hunting the invasive species or even genetic engineering).

Humans are simply a natural overload. We could be part of an ecosystem that is suppose to overload and die out so that another ecosystem that has a higher equilibrium can take its place.

>Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we… are the cure.” Agent Smith.

The matrix was such a garbage movie thematically speaking. They had a huge lack of understanding around the nuance and nature of biology.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#104
post #74

“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…

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

There is. Just not with your rabbit alone. The equilibrium evolves at the ecosystem level. In the wilderness it's predators.

For your case, you are "dealing" with the rabbit infestation, therefore YOU are the one that's going to be applying pressure. YOU are part of the system.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#105

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 (conven…

[deleted]

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#106
post #71
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying Joe Biden or Trump or Kamala Harris should have the ultimate authority over growth? Those are the people you trust to cap human potential?

You understand they don’t make laws, right?

You're saying the current or previous congress should decide what human growth should look like then? I don't see how thats much better

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#107
post #29

Continuous growth is necessary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there cannot be continuous growth, who becomes the arbiter of human potential? People who call growth cancer? You can't be serious.

You think infinite growth with finite resources is possible? This should be good.

Which resource are we going to run out of that will halt all progress for which there are no adaptations?

We're constantly finding gigantic reserves of resources. We are closer to being able to synthesize all the resources we want or need than we are to inflexibly running out of them.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#108
post #85
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: res…

They will always be far flung technologies with an anti-growth approach.

I'm not seeing anything on or beyond the horizon that we cannot adapt to and continue course. Can you cite specific examples?

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#109
post #82
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. An…

Technological progress historically has functioned as a very high multiplier for growth. From the industrial revolution to communication technologies.

Controlling all growth in order to live in peace is an idea that is 100+ years old. Mackinder(widely regarded as the founder of geopolitics, was the director of LSE) wrote about it. It was his vision to foster the league of nations. By the end of his work describing such he goes down to limiting the freedom of individuals quite significantly. He was the seed for groups like the World Economic Forum and the current international bodies such as the WTO, WHO, UN, etc.

I'm not sure you realize the measures that would have to be taken down to the individual level to control all growth. Life would be unrecognizable compared to what it is today. Oh, and no one would be allowed to exist outside the system. It would only be possible in a highly authoritarian world government.

Answer to your question: Colonizing the galaxy and eternal progression of welfare for humanity.

Re: Continuous growth is cancer

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think infinite growth with finite resources is possible? This should be good.

Which resource are we going to run out of that will halt all progress for which there are no adaptations? We're constantly finding gigantic reserves of resources. We are closer to being able to synthesize all the resources we want or need than we are to inflexibly running out of them.

Fossil fuels are quite finite.
Post reply on HN