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

Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#51

Post by ars »

skybrian wrote: post #41
zemaj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's all considered in a vacuum. Even though the majority of the population don't understand the problem, this is ok. We have an economic system that benefits those who predict impending needs and place themselves in situations to provide for them. Take a look at the green industry ramping up. In the not too distance future, I think most of us here expect oil replacement to be highly profitable. I disagree with t…

Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

That's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe.

Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die.

But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the goal.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#52

Post by robryan »

jackowayed wrote: post #2

The best illustration of the concept, imo, is that with sustained 1.3%/year world population growth, we'll reach a population density of 1 person per square meter of land in only 780 years.

At some point though there will be some kind of event to bring this down. Might be a population number or a resource usage spot, very unlikely to the world could remain at peace as certain countries loss large chunks of people to famines ect, people that have nothing to live for wouldn't want to go down without a fight.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#53

Post by code_duck »

ars wrote: post #51
skybrian wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

That's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe. Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die. But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the…

No, to reduce energy use you'd need for people to take conservation seriously and to dramatically improve efficiency. Plenty of energy is wasted on inefficient cars, poor insulation, wasteful industrial processes, and so on.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#54

Post by seabee »

skybrian wrote: post #41
zemaj wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's all considered in a vacuum. Even though the majority of the population don't understand the problem, this is ok. We have an economic system that benefits those who predict impending needs and place themselves in situations to provide for them. Take a look at the green industry ramping up. In the not too distance future, I think most of us here expect oil replacement to be highly profitable. I disagree with t…

Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

To be clear, is this because green energy is (yet) incapable of satisfying our current needs, or purely because our ability to generate green energy is as finite as from oil?

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#55

Post by seabee »

mhartl wrote: post #37

Before people freak out about exponential growth, please consider John McCarthy's Slogan. (Yes, that John McCarthy; Lisp isn't the only thing he's done.) He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html Based on reactions to this video (among other things), I'd add Hartl's Counterpoint: Just because you're willing to do arithmetic doesn't mean you're n…

The video also makes the point that people are ignorant of the exponential function's effect, believing that constant growth is possible, when it clearly is not.

The Dr. also mentions that 0% growth is inevitable, so that is covered - but I had no idea it was called the logistic function, thanks.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#56

Post by skybrian »

seabee wrote: post #54
skybrian wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

To be clear, is this because green energy is (yet) incapable of satisfying our current needs, or purely because our ability to generate green energy is as finite as from oil?

Actually, what I meant to say is that fossil fuel consumption has to stop growing and preferably decline. But there are limits to green energy too. For a British take on this: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#57

Post by wazoox »

mhartl wrote: post #37

Before people freak out about exponential growth, please consider John McCarthy's Slogan. (Yes, that John McCarthy; Lisp isn't the only thing he's done.) He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html Based on reactions to this video (among other things), I'd add Hartl's Counterpoint: Just because you're willing to do arithmetic doesn't mean you're n…

Huh. This guy is simply making the very basic point that politicians, economists and bankers selling us "growth" as a solution to unemployment, debt, etc are plainly lying. Growth (population, GDP, energy availability, etc) will stop at some point. An economy that relies entirely on growth to merely function is doomed to fail spectacularly at some point in time.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#58

Post by sesqu »

barmstrong wrote: post #45
prodigal_erik wrote: post #14

I'm not usually a fan of long talking-head videos but this was absolutely worthwhile. What's most chilling is the story of the bottle and the bacteria, and the realization that somehow finding a whole new planet would only tide us over for a couple more generations, after which we'd need two more....

Certainly a great video. But one thing I didn't like about the bacteria in the bottle story was that he conveniently switched to 100% growth for that example. And then made it sound like Boulder was in the same position "it's 11:59 in the Boulder valely" etc. But still his main point it dead on.

Well, he had just prior spent some time explaining how to convert any growth rate to 100% just by scaling the time axis. So when he says it's 11:59, he means it's 10 years (or whatever) to the end, if one were to assume constant growth.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#59

Post by skybrian »

ars wrote: post #51
skybrian wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.

That's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe. Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die. But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the…

In the short term, sudden changes in energy consumption are very disruptive. (For example, see gas prices and the auto industry last year.) But a longer-term, gradual shift towards less energy usage need not be.

Re: Our greatest shortcoming is our inability to understand the exponential function

#60

Post by jefffoster »

jluxenberg wrote: post #40

Neat math trick from the video: 70 / x = number of years of constant growth required for a quantity to double given that it grows at x percent The example used in the video: if the price of lift tickets goes up by 7% per year, in 10 years, that price will double. (and actually, the constant 70 is an approximation, the actual constant is ln (2) * 100)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72
Post reply on HN