Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A casual glance at nuclear physics points to a world where we’re nowhere near our energy production capabilities. Automation sings along. And that argument would be salient if it was required - “economists say infinite growth is possible” is a strawman argument.



"Nowhere near" is not "literally infinite". How many nuclear reactors can you build with a finite amount of matter? See other comment. I'm not sure why pointing out that economists say, believe, and rely on infinite growth is a strawman when it is a statement of fact.


Okay, then find me the economist who believes in "literally infinite" growth. If you have a hard time finding _one person_ who is both a published economist and has no grasp of the basic laws of thermodynamics, then that view is probably not representative. This is the weakest possible form of the argument, hence the "straw".


I kind of figured the rebuttal was going to be "we don't literally mean literally infinite growth forever, but our models do, and we believe our models, don't call it a strawman."

If the rate of economic growth merely slows, we get a recession. What kind of hell happens if the rate goes negative and the economy shrinks? For too long? I don't feel obligated to point at any one person who says "yes I believe growth can continue infinitely forever" because it's the most basic assumption baked into economic models on how prosperity works. An assumption of infinite growth, and assumption that "progress" is also eternal, that there is always something more.


It is absolutely not the most basic assumption based into economic models. Neither you nor I can find one single person who believes that. It is the weakest possible form of an argument you are intentionally misconstruing. This is the straw in the straw man. The steelman version of that argument is "can logarithmic growth continue for one hundred thousand times longer than the expected lifetime of our sun?". I think it's actually quite easy to say yes to that. One fun idea here is Von Neumann probes[1].

There is infinite distance between infinity and a negative number.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Vo...


There is infinite distance between 0 and 1. Fantastical machines as evidence for a fantastical argument is not compelling in the slightest.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: