What is energy, actually? (2011) • Hacker News Board

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#61

Post by jstewartmobile » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

A lot of charts and napkin math to reach an obvious conclusion. Better discussion would be, "A) Why do we worship GDP, and B) how do we stop?"

My own answers (shared as a starting point rather than a destination) would be:

A)

- old westerners are really attached to the pensions they promised themselves

- marginally-skilled people prefer the illusion of agency offered by employment over being total dependents of the state

- people who have never experienced certain products and services attach much more value to them than those who already have--new toy vs old hat.

- plutocrats are very interested in keeping the machine well-oiled so that they may enjoy their lives in peace and keep the guillotine at bay.

and B)

- short of civilizational collapse, I'm not sure that we can.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#62

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

abyssin wrote: post #34

supernova87a wrote: post #28

Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth. If you didn’t have growth, you’d all be waiting for your promotion at the power plant when someone dies and frees up a position for you.

What makes it amusing is the assumption that people's thoughts should be consistent with their behaviour. Being interested in growth could be a consequence of being interested in material safety. This last concern is perfectly consistent with reducing energy consumption, given climate change is a threat to material safety.

... and more generally, players in a game can play by the existing rules, while still advocating a change to the rules.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#63

Post by projektfu » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #52

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

It’s not zero sum, even during recession, because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing. You don’t have to take someone else’s, but you might all take less than the potential.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#64

Post by koheripbal » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:06 PM UTC

abyssin wrote: post #39

nabla9 wrote: post #21

The argument is based on looking a the world as a whole. In developed world energy intensity of GDP is decreasing even when you take into account imports. Post-industrial economies can grow while decreasing energy use. What the author is suggesting is that the developing world should stop growing. I can't agree with that. They need their electricity and washing machines. GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2011 PPP…

They need their electricity and washing machine, but do they need exotic vacations and long commutes in powerful cars? Do they need clothes that are made to be worn for a very short time? Do they need technology that's cheap to the point of it being wasted without an afterthought?

There is an important argument here about how not all GDP is created equal. In both developing and developed worlds - a lot of people just buy wasteful garbage.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#65

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:06 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #63

pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

It’s not zero sum, even during recession, because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing. You don’t have to take someone else’s, but you might all take less than the potential.

> because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing

Er .. "economic growth" and "increasing GDP" are usually considered to be synonyms? Do you have alternative definitions?

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#66

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

kome wrote: post #13

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

you re-discovered or independently discovered the basis marxism, sort of.

I guess you're being downvoted because of the M word, but you have a point; it's very similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#67

Post by nickik » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

> 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law.

And sometimes its to the benefit of the environment, the employees and its in accordance with the rule of law.

> 4. Investors need to invest money in instruments with a certain minimum ROI because if they don't, inflation will erode their savings.

Inflation are low and predictable in the West. And investors would want to make money no matter what the inflation is.

> 6. The end result is a sort of "Red Queen" effect where everyone is forced to compete harder and harder just to maintain his/her existing standard of living.

That really isn't a logical conclusion.

> 8. Therefore, we should focus on curbing inflation to curb the pace of overwhelming growth, and thereby restore some measure of social justice.

I would recommend to you to really get into economics. You are making a lot of assumptions that really don't hold up.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#68

Post by coldtea » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #52

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

>I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer.

That's fine when wealth distribution is "the 0.01% owns 80% of the wealth".

Plenty of dollars to go around...

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#69

Post by friendly_chap » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #52

hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

> Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. Not sure about the USA, but real inflation is closer to 7-8 percent in Europe, wage growth falling behind.

"Unbiased private-sector efforts to calculate the real rate of inflation have yielded a rate of around 7% to 13% per year, depending on the locale — many multiples of the official rate of around 1% per year" https://www.businessinsider.com/if-people-knew-the-actual-in...

In my country (Hungary) grocery prices rose an average 38% from last year for example.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#70

Post by ckastner » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #28

Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth. If you didn’t have growth, you’d all be waiting for your promotion at the power plant when someone dies and frees up a position for you.

> Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth.

But that's the good kind of growth, you see?

I'm being sarcastic, of course. The ironic (and to me: annoying) thing about the really vocal moralists is that the concept of self-reflection seems to be entirely foreign to them. The problem is always with other people, and those other people just need to change, no matter at what cost.