Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet

Post by wussboy » Wed, Feb 23, 2022, 2:35 AM UTC

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #48

pdonis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our present lifestyle does seem to require constant growth No, it doesn't. The obvious cause of the huge economic growth over the past 150 years, which is what the author focuses on, is population growth. World population is expected to level off in this century. The author also assumes, incorrectly, that GDP--money spent on goods and services--is the right measure of overall wealth. It's not. The author even discu…

> No, it doesn't. The obvious cause of the huge economic growth over the past 150 years, which is what the author focuses on, is population growth. World population is expected to level off in this century. world population is leveling off because we're approaching many of these limits to growth and that's affecting the enabling factors for continued population growth. > The author also assumes, incorrectly, that GDP…

> world population is leveling off because we’re approaching many of these limits to growth

Is it? My understanding is that as economies become richer, healthcare improves, infant mortality decreases and parents reduce their birth rates because they need less children to “hedge their bets”.

Post by fallingfrog » Wed, Feb 23, 2022, 5:36 PM UTC

reedjosh wrote: post #22

fallingfrog wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfair - I didn't say that all human economics are easily predicted by a spreadsheet. It's an exercise. A starting point for discussion. As in: to start with, point out the assumption that is wrong . Rather than just insult me.

> Unfair Kinda I suppose. But the whole spreadsheet 'try this' trope is already unnecessarily hostile. You could put everything that spreadsheet exercise demonstrates into words. And that's my main argument too. This equation/exercise is so simple as to be useless. Human systems are multi-variate to the degree that a simple equation -- in this case showing that reliance on extractables is bad because their availabili…

I'll give you a hint: Each one of those equations has an assumption embedded in it. The first and last one seem pretty solid. The middle two, though- The second assumption is that maintenance on capital is some constant proportion of total capital. That might be true, but also might not be, especially if you consider knowledge to be a form of capital. Maybe maintenance should scale with the log of capital, or something like that. But even then, I'm pretty sure that unless maintenance goes to zero, this doesn't affect the general shape of the curve.

The third assumption, that capital increases as a constant proportion of resources extracted, is even more questionable. I think it's fair to say that we are able to do more with less now than we could in the past. You might say that that is a function of the existing capital too. So what happens if you try something like C += r*q*(1 + .01*C)? Do you still get a peak?

And of course, there's the assumption that the next bit of resources you extract is a little harder than the last bit. Statistically this has been true for some time now, but you could imagine this rule reversing, at least temporarily, if we gained access to some new resource, say, asteroid mining.

So there's plenty in the model to attack, if you take the time to really consider it.

Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet

Re: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet