Yeah, this is related to my other thought that the economy will stop growing anyways. This is because no fundamentally new technology is going to be developed in the future. (except a few minor contributions) . Let me explain: I believe that humanity has undergone three big developments since its beginning:
the agricultural development
heavy industrial (transport + heavy machinery)
information technology
These kinda represent the three main branches of knowledge in the medieval age (theology --> abstract thought --> IT, law --> economies (especially of scale) --> heavy industry, medicine --> interacting with biological beings --> agriculture) or three of the four levels in aristoteles’ worldview (minerals, plants, animals, ideas) representing (construction, agriculture, transport/machinery, information technology). If that is a philosophy/worldview you’re into. I think we have kinda explored these levels (qualitatively), now anything that is left is quantitative growth, but such a thing is not meaningfully possible on Earth (for limited space) without destroying the planetary ecology, so i believe that spaceflight (settling Mars) is the only viable way to continue to grow the economy.
I believe it is a good thing that the economy grows as long as it is meaningfully possible. The economy must stop growing when it stops making sense. And on Earth, we’re close to that turning point, i guess. That’s why i’m actually okay with countries closing their borders: because i don’t believe in any more progress through the trades can be done. Tell me if you have any more questions!
I think you are being closed off to unexpected developments. For instance fusion could make energy an essentially free good within the scale of current usage within the next century.
The economy must stop growing when it stops making sense.
What would compel it do so? The logic baked into capitalism is to maximize capital as quickly as possible—there is no internal limit. Systemic collapse can limit it but that doesn’t seem to factor into your reasoning.
Yeah, this is related to my other thought that the economy will stop growing anyways. This is because no fundamentally new technology is going to be developed in the future. (except a few minor contributions) . Let me explain: I believe that humanity has undergone three big developments since its beginning:
These kinda represent the three main branches of knowledge in the medieval age (theology --> abstract thought --> IT, law --> economies (especially of scale) --> heavy industry, medicine --> interacting with biological beings --> agriculture) or three of the four levels in aristoteles’ worldview (minerals, plants, animals, ideas) representing (construction, agriculture, transport/machinery, information technology). If that is a philosophy/worldview you’re into. I think we have kinda explored these levels (qualitatively), now anything that is left is quantitative growth, but such a thing is not meaningfully possible on Earth (for limited space) without destroying the planetary ecology, so i believe that spaceflight (settling Mars) is the only viable way to continue to grow the economy.
I believe it is a good thing that the economy grows as long as it is meaningfully possible. The economy must stop growing when it stops making sense. And on Earth, we’re close to that turning point, i guess. That’s why i’m actually okay with countries closing their borders: because i don’t believe in any more progress through the trades can be done. Tell me if you have any more questions!
I think you are being closed off to unexpected developments. For instance fusion could make energy an essentially free good within the scale of current usage within the next century.
What would compel it do so? The logic baked into capitalism is to maximize capital as quickly as possible—there is no internal limit. Systemic collapse can limit it but that doesn’t seem to factor into your reasoning.
We will find out soon enough.