zlacker

There will be a period of massive upheaval when the fundamental tenet of all economic models and assumptions (perpetual growth) is completely chronically invalidated and we run out of resources as the models reset to something that’s absolutely zero sum (as it should be). Great suffering and fighting can be expected during this period.

>>ramraj+(OP)
while the question is open if economic growth will continue forever neither resources or population are an issue. The German economy say, has grown by 400% since the 1970s in real terms while the population has stayed stable. Energy use has slightly fallen over the last few decades.

Economic growth is technologically driven and developed economies are at or already past peak resources consumption.

>>ramraj+(OP)
War will be significantly more risky with no population growth

>>ramraj+(OP)
Economic growth doesn't need to have any anchoring in reality, it can grow as much as we want it to.

>>Barrin+q1
i'm no economist... but didn't externalizing a lot of production offset the missing population growth? So germany just externalized raw material extraction and production but still kept the profits?

>>photon+J4
At art history museums you can see paintings of hundreds of cavalry men protecting a star shaped fort, nervously watching a mob of yesteryear patrons go about their day. Protecting capital meant hiring hundreds of flesh and blood soldiers back then.

In 2010 the same job could be done with 10 men holding machine guns. In 2030, we have drones. Humans need not apply.

>>tetris+E6
Could be done with 10 men? In 2023 Russia had significantly more than 10 men protecting Moscow from a rebellion. Thing is, you need more if the enemy also has the same weapons.

>>kmonse+U5
It will still be anchored in reality, it just won’t have the guaranteed bump from population increase. Growth will be slower, but will still happen due to technology and efficiency improvements. Once we set our expectations to 1% growth, there’s no reason that has to be a problem.

>>tetris+E6
Think one step further: if people become much more valuable and rare, targeting and killing them will become more valuable too.

>>Barrin+q1
More fundamentally I’m not convinced that we are not in a zero sum game as seems to be assumed under all economic theory.

>>kmonse+U5
If it is not anchored in reality then you don't need growth how long until people understand that? You don't need to wait for economic growth in the opensource space. You just go ahead and download the software, use it and be happy today.

>>ramraj+Hf
Entropy is inherently a zero sum game. We have a given level of energy reserves and all we do is transform what we have into a different form.

Economists confuse an increase in the extraction rate as some kind of "creating something from nothing" but actually a better analogy is "traveling to previously unreachable places".

>>nindal+q7
Tell me the total casualties haven't been on the whole declining since the dawn of time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

>>bitsch+o6
Germany has also "climbed the value ladder" focusing on production of high-value goods whilst counting on imports to provide for low-value ones.

Some of that is of course classic Ricardian "comparative advantage" of trade. Much is, though, outsourcing high-impact / high-resource / high-effluent production to elsewhere.

>>ramraj+(OP)
As long as Jensen can sell me polished sand for $5000, till then the economy isn't zero sum.

>>kmonse+U5
Economics is fundamentally about the allocation of scarce resources. So if we are talking about how human civilization allocates scarce resources (and not about some virtual economy e.g. inside a computer game), then economic growth is very much anchored in reality.

>>kmonse+U5
He's a fictional conversation [1] between an economist and physicist where they discuss this very premise:

Economist: Hi Tom, I’m [ahem..cough]. I’m an economist.

Physicist: Hey, that’s great. I’ve been thinking a bit about growth and want to run an idea by you. I claim that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely.

Economist: [chokes on bread crumb] Did I hear you right? Did you say that growth can not continue forever?

Physicist: That’s right. I think physical limits assert themselves.

... the rest in the link ...

[1] https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

>>photon+J4
And yet if resources are running out, what are your other options? Either you definitely die, or you fight and maybe die or maybe get more resources and don't die.

>>Eddy_V+Ad1
That article ties growth to consumption, and consumption to energy use. This does not have to be true.

We could all decide to multiply every currency with 10x and nothing would change except the number and we would have 10x economic growth as measured in the currency.

That is an obviously simplified example, but it is not that contrived. Modern money is not tied to energy use. Money is created out of thin air every day and that is ok.

>>kmonse+2E3
That isn't economic growth because there is no change in the supply or demand of goods or services which underlay economic activity.

>>Eddy_V+6Fh
What is economic growth other than numbers getting larger?