Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist

[jingofever]

Astrophysicist Tom Murphy recounts a conversation he had with an unnamed 'established economics professor from a prestigious institution'.

the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years.

Of course that is not a warning about global boiling but rather taking the concept of infinite growth of energy (and economy) to its absurd conclusion.

[JackRiddler]

I recently was motivated to read a real economics textbook: one written by people who understand and respect physical limitations. The book, called Ecological Economics, by Herman Daly and Joshua Farley, states in its Note to Instructors:

…we do not share the view of many of our economics colleagues that growth will solve the economic problem, that narrow self-interest is the only dependable human motive, that technology will always find a substitute for any depleted resource, that the market can efficiently allocate all types of goods, that free markets always lead to an equilibrium balancing supply and demand, or that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to economics.

This is a book for me!

[vanlose kid]

Physicist: True enough. So we would likely agree that energy growth will not continue indefinitely. But two points before we continue: First, I’ll just mention that energy growth has far outstripped population growth, so that per-capita energy use has surged dramatically over time—our energy lives today are far richer than those of our great-great-grandparents a century ago [economist nods]. So even if population stabilizes, we are accustomed to per-capita energy growth: total energy would have to continue growing to maintain such a trend [another nod].

one more reason why green-talk (the official-statist kind) makes no sense: maintaining "our standard of living" while transitioning to green. can't happen. and won't. so why is it being sold?

the empire can't afford it's citizens. the central-command model can't continue to work (the FED in all it's forms will end). so the empire collapses. or continues, nominally. the ruling class wish to perpetuate their rule. they command the energy resources and arms and the pop is left to fend for themselves. city states might make a come back. Neuromancer territory.

something other than the apocalypse-silo, old-school walled corporate enclaves.

*

[vanlose kid]

there it is again:

Economist: Okay, point taken. But there is more to efficiency than incremental improvement. There are also game-changers. Tele-conferencing instead of air travel. Laptop replaces desktop; iPhone replaces laptop, etc.—each far more energy frugal than the last. The internet is an example of an enabling innovation that changes the way we use energy.

Physicist: These are important examples, and I do expect some continuation along this line, but we still need to eat, and no activity can get away from energy use entirely. [semi-reluctant nod/bobble] Sure, there are lower-intensity activities, but nothing of economic value is completely free of energy.

Economist: Some things can get awfully close. Consider virtualization. Imagine that in the future, we could all own virtual mansions and have our every need satisfied: all by stimulative neurological trickery. We would stil need nutrition, but the energy required to experience a high-energy lifestyle would be relatively minor. This is an example of enabling technology that obviates the need to engage in energy-intensive activities. Want to spend the weekend in Paris? You can do it without getting out of your chair. [More like an IV-drip-equipped toilet than a chair, the physicist thinks.]

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... physicist/

from a different thread:

came across this in the graun:

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed "unsettling". Liao explained how his paper – entitled, "Human Engineering and Climate Change" – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how "biomedical modifications of humans" could be used to "mitigate and/or adapt to climate change". The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and "preimplantation genetic diagnosis"; lowering birth-rates through "cognitive enhancement"; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the "pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy" to engender a better "correlation" with environmental problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... philosophy

and after reading what i highlighted this is what came to mind:



spooked myself, obviously.

*

[vanlose kid]

maybe i ought to repost the entire thing?

Physicist: Even early economists like Adam Smith foresaw economic growth as a temporary phase lasting maybe a few hundred years, ultimately limited by land (which is where energy was obtained in that day). If humans are successful in the long term, it is clear that a steady-state economic theory will far outlive the transient growth-based economic frameworks of today. Forget Smith, Keynes, Friedman, and that lot. The economists who devise a functioning steady-state economic system stand to be remembered for a longer eternity than the growth dudes. [Economist stares into the distance as he contemplates this alluring thought.]

just forget them, okay?

*

[Marie Laveau]

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed "unsettling". Liao explained how his paper – entitled, "Human Engineering and Climate Change" – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how "biomedical modifications of humans" could be used to "mitigate and/or adapt to climate change". The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and "preimplantation genetic diagnosis"; lowering birth-rates through "cognitive enhancement"; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the "pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy" to engender a better "correlation" with environmental problems.

The issue is, though, this is necessary now. Humans have effed up big time, and the only thing that will save us (if anything will) is incredibly drastic measures.

The problem I have with this, though, is with any small amount of propaganda, we never would have gotten to this point. If Brangelina had touted they were only going to have one child, or none, (and people like them) we'd never have been having the incredible baby boom we are having now. If Jimmy Carter's propaganda had had its way, we'd have powered down, as we should have. That probably wouldn't have saved us, probably would have just postponed the inevitable, but it would have been a far cry from the "MORNING IN AMERICA!" bullshit we've been fed the last 30+-years, which has led to the catastrophy we see before us.

The question isn't why (insert spooky music here) people are talking about such draconian measures, but why supposition of those draconian measures became necessary in the first place. The idiots that run the show aren't.....well, they aren't idiots. They crunch the numbers, they play all the "what if" computer games. They've known for a long, long, long, long time what would happen if we went down this road. The real spooky music goes with the wondering: WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO DO THIS?!

And you can insert this pic there, too:

[justdrew]

well, I've talked about "the peace virus" for a few years now. Thought I'd had a "new" idea, and then this guy talking about human engineering seemed to be on the same track... well, I hate to keep dropping John Brunner books, but turns out (I just found out about this book), it was NOT a new idea...

THE STONE THAT NEVER CAME DOWN
NEL paperback, 1978. Cover artist uncredited. (the book first came out in 1973)

"Europe in the twenty-first century is a stricken continent. Cities crumble with neglect. Governments topple to military coups. Bands of 'godheads' roam the streets armed with plastic crosses. Soon war is bound to break out, and then the world will take the final step towards suicide.

But one man may just have the answer - VC - a new kind of viral drug which has the power to alter drastically, and permanently, the human mind. He knows it will prevent Man's self-destruction, but is it safe? And does he have the right to take that decision - a decision that will change the destiny of Mankind, by changing the very nature of Man himself."


There was a cure for depression and unemployment
There was a cure for war, madness and national hatreds
There was a cure for prejudice, crime and mass hysteria
But there were those that wanted the cure suppressed until the world collapsed!

http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000023651/

[Wombaticus Rex]

Forget Smith, Keynes, Friedman, and that lot. The economists who devise a functioning steady-state economic system stand to be remembered for a longer eternity than the growth dudes.

Reminded me of Magnasanti:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTJQTc-TqpU

Those who have tried their hand at Sim City 3000 will be interested in this video of what is claimed to be the maximum size city possible. “Magnasanti” has 6 million residents, and required three years to construct. Vincent Ocasia, the creator, notes that while it is a maximal size city, it is not a utopian paradise:

Technically, no one is leaving or coming into the city. Population growth is stagnant. Sims don’t need to travel long distances, because their workplace is just within walking distance. In fact they do not even need to leave their own block… Suffocating air pollution, high unemployment, no fire stations, schools, or hospitals, a regimented lifestyle – this is the price that these sims pay for living in the city with the highest population. It’s a sick and twisted goal to strive towards. The ironic thing about it is the sims in Magnasanti tolerate it. They don’t rebel, or cause revolutions and social chaos. No one considers challenging the system by physical means since a hyper-efficient police state keeps them in line. They have all been successfully dumbed down, sickened with poor health, enslaved and mind-controlled just enough to keep this system going for thousands of years…

In the video at 6:39, you can see that the population precipitously dies off after age 60. And, in case you were wondering, the creator says “I am not autistic, or a savant, nor suffer from OCD, or suffer from any other form of clinical mental disease or illness for that matter.”

I think the economist really laid his cards on the table when he started talking about simulacrum and virtualization: "Efficiency" is inherent a lie. It arises from a mutual agreement, accepted or enforced, negotiated or unspoken, to settle for less and tolerate faults and losses. Usually all this settling and tolerating runs downhill, much like the classic thermodynamics thought experiment about "a river of shit."

Why go to Paris when you can have this shitty replacement? Is that just as "good," economically speaking? Because we can get a lot of young, smart guys in suits to come in here and talk about why that's "good," in case you're on the fence here.

[wintler2]

The question isn't why (insert spooky music here) people are talking about such draconian measures, but why supposition of those draconian measures became necessary in the first place. The idiots that run the show aren't.....well, they aren't idiots. They crunch the numbers, they play all the "what if" computer games. They've known for a long, long, long, long time what would happen if we went down this road. The real spooky music goes with the wondering: WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO DO THIS?!

I question the assumption that there is anyone 'running the show' in any comprehensive sense (apologies if i'm imagining it).

and i thibk that we've ALL ALWAYS known 'what would happen if we went down this road.' Overshoot is not an unimaginable thing for our or any species.

..
Why go to Paris when you can have this shitty replacement? Is that just as "good," economically speaking? Because we can get a lot of young, smart guys in suits to come in here and talk about why that's "good," in case you're on the fence here.

Lol, can we club them as they come in the door? Post-peak economics: more lipstick, less pig.

[Simulist]

The question isn't why (insert spooky music here) people are talking about such draconian measures, but why supposition of those draconian measures became necessary in the first place. The idiots that run the show aren't.....well, they aren't idiots. They crunch the numbers, they play all the "what if" computer games. They've known for a long, long, long, long time what would happen if we went down this road. The real spooky music goes with the wondering: WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO DO THIS?!

And you can insert this pic there, too:

Marie, I think "the other" (aliens, demons, archons, whatever...) serves as the excuse those addicted to human hubris are looking for.

We became addicted to our own hubris from the very beginning — which, I think, is the real message to us from the mythical Garden of Eden.

I think humans will surmount our own hubris or be surmounted by it. And as things stand right now, the latter looks inevitable to me.

(Thanatos, the death drive, can be a very powerful human urge.)

[JackRiddler]

Simply marvelous:

Economist: That’s a striking result. Could not technology pipe or beam the heat elsewhere, rather than relying on thermal radiation?

The entire original is great reading, right through the comments!

[Nordic]

It never ceases to amaze me how people who are highly paid, "prestigious", in positions of status, are educators of others, highly respected, etc. etc. can have NO COMMON FUCKING SENSE.