The Impossibility of Growth

[Fake Boris]

No, it was getting close to that in the 19th century. Then we invented the internal combustion engine, and the threat of cities buried in horse manure came to an end.

Air manure instead of soil manure

Progress

[Aeson]

This is all good, but my calculation was about inorganic thrash. And residential waste only. I didn't even include industrial residue from lucrative activity.

So obviously we need to work towards more biodegradeable waste and more biological processes to digest waste materials. GMO

[Fake Boris]

Read #413

[AAAAAAAAH!]

**** philosophy dude. I think I see what your problem is. In the US we have low population density. That means we won't be knee deep in our own garbage. They maybe knee deep in their own garbage in China one day. Good cause they suck!

Or the Chinese will just find ways to produce less trash. Or ship it to Siberia

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Carbon equivalent emissions, cardboard, and plastic.

All of which is tiny relative to the value of the game. Thanks for playing

[Kidlicious]

This is all good, but my calculation was about inorganic thrash. And residential waste only. I didn't even include industrial residue from lucrative activity.

Trash imposes a cost. Is that cost going to increase? Probably. But when a cost increases an incentive to lower that cost always exists. Your model (calculations) just doesn't mean much my friend, and that's a good thing.

[Fake Boris]

All of which is tiny relative to the value of the game. Thanks for playing

You're stupid.

Very few products in % of the world's economy are sold for the sake of the numerical information they contain. Our existence is material and most products we need are.

Even if it were, the information contained in a product is the result of labor. And guess what people do when they think, compose or type?

Yes you guessed it. They consume material resources. Coffee cups, electronics, paper, etc.

This is the reason why we are consuming more and more resources, even though output per unit of raw material is higher than it has ever been. Profit is invested in activities that externalize costs.

Let's say that I'm Sid Meier and my time is worth $1000/hour. I can throw the styrofoam cup away (5 seconds) or clean it (2 minutes). Obviously throwing it away is the more profitable option. So in the end, the profit generated by my intellectual activity goes to paying someone else to extract the resources.

Whatever it is that we do, the cycle always begin at the raw material extraction facility.

If you understand this, you can understand the OP.

[Fake Boris]

Phrased differently, information has value because it can be traded for material resources.

Dematerialization is an illusion.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

You're stupid.

That's really mature.

Very few products in % of the world's economy are sold for the sake of the numerical information they contain. Our existence is material and most products we need are.

The current composition of the economy isn't really relevant to the question of whether the economy can grow larger. If better games are made, that's growth, even if the available physical goods stays the same.

Even if it were, the information contained in a product is the result of labor. And guess what people do when they think, compose or type?

Yes you guessed it. They consume material resources. Coffee cups, electronics, paper, etc.

Uhh yes but it's not like programmers have to keep consuming more and more coffee, paper, etc. as time goes by.

This is the reason why we are consuming more and more resources, even though output per unit of raw material is higher than it has ever been. Profit is invested in activities that externalize costs.

"Consuming resources" is not an externalized cost. Businesses have to pay for the materials they use.

Let's say that I'm Sid Meier and my time is worth $1000/hour. I can throw the styrofoam cup away (5 seconds) or clean it (2 minutes). Obviously throwing it away is the more profitable option. So in the end, the profit generated by my intellectual activity goes to paying someone else to extract the resources.

Amazingly human labor is a much more precious resource than places on Earth where we can put styrofoam.

Whatever it is that we do, the cycle always begin at the raw material extraction facility.

This sounds like Physiocracy. Believing in Physiocracy when you live in the 21st century is pretty crazy, but there you go.

If you understand this, you can understand the OP.

I "understood" it from the beginning. I don't buy it because it makes bad assumptions.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Phrased differently, information has value because it can be traded for material resources.

Dematerialization is an illusion.

You're confusing the aggregate value of, say, food, with marginal utility. Sure, without any food I'd be dead, but that doesn't mean that everything I own is only valuable because it can be traded for food. If I buy a $50 game, then on the margin I'd rather spend $50 on intellectual property than spend $50 on physical goods.

[Aeson]

Read #413

I did. It's garbage. He seems to be stuck on a planet which has no sun to power it or something.

The reality is we have a very good renewable external energy source (the sun) that has directly or indirectly powered the vast majority of what we've done throughout human history. We have tools that can be powered directly or indirectly by the sun (biological processes). We have the ability to modify organisms.

GMO is the solution to the waste problem, not the problem you want to view it as.

The reality is that decay happens quite fast, especially when you want to promote it. I have some reddish dust that used to be bent nails. Yah, I've bought a hundred kilos of nails or so the past 5 years. That doesn't mean I have a hundred kilos of nails now ... or that there is 100 kilos of steel now missing from the world.

If we focus on producing things which are easily decayed ... especially things which provide valuable output when decayed (organic matter->methane, soil amendments for example) then we can continue to grow even in material wealth for a long time.

Immaterial wealth has little little in the way of material limits. Services as well have little to no material waste. They can grow essentially indefinitely.

[Aeson]

Phrased differently, information has value because it can be traded for material resources.

No, it has value because someone is willing to trade anything for it (currency, material resources, information) which is valued enough by the one selling it.

[kentonio]

The reality is we have a very good renewable external energy source (the sun)

The sun isn't a renewable energy source, one day that giant ball of fire is going to run out.

[Elok]

This is the myth people keep repeating themselves to deny the obvious.

This is false. We just keep using up more and more resources.

Think about it a little bit. Why is information valuable? Very often because it allows you to make a product that makes another one obsolete.

A guy living in a studio apartment in NYC is considered far, far wealthier than a peasant farmer in SE Asia, despite the fact that, in terms of physical stuff owned, they're pretty much equal (****in' water buffalo are BIG). And the value of their stuff is not remotely proportional to the number of protons in it. NYC guy's cheap Ikea bed cost considerably less than his fancy laptop--and the valuable movies and music stored on that laptop occupy a pitifully tiny space. Meanwhile, in the stock market down the street, people and computers are moving massive piles of value around--piles of value largely divorced from physical objects.

[Sava]

I just made a very simple calculation just for fun.

Your thought experiments are inadmissible.