stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3169579
I don't follow your point at all. The pseudo-science of Economics couldn't exist w/o technology. Technology is not a wild card, it's the very basis of the discipline. If it weren't for the domestication of animals and the invention of plowing tools, we'd still be hunter/gatherers, like our Great Ape relatives.
I beg to differ. You're overlooking the VERY VERY important fact that the population continues to grow, but the space to house it (i.e. the planet) isn't. We not only can, but mathematically we most assuredly will, reach saturation (as opposed to satiation - there's a huge difference between the two.)
Technology isn't the issue - it has the potential to be infinite. However, without sufficient RESOURCES - food, fuel and water - technology is irrelevant.
You're post was all about population growth being the key to sustainable growth. And population growth is a slight factor.
In attempts to quantify and understand how different factors influence the economy, economists will attempt to isolate the different factors. What you wrote in that thread, is basically the conclusions one would reach if there was no change in technology.
The reason I say it is a wild card, (and many times ignored from economic models) is because it is all but impossible to quantify it. Since by definition it is currently unknown.
The view that was expresses, is a very pessimistic view. Although in the VERY long term theoretically accurate. Personally, imo worrying about the complete harvest of the earth resources is like worrying that in 5 billion years the sun will die.
There are finite resources, but that is in part what creates the values we assign to a specific resource or product. And may be less theoretic if we don't have technology changing what we consume. For example 100 years ago, we had very little use for crude oil. Today it makes the world go round. 100 years from now, there will be something else that takes its place thanks to technology.
My point is technology not population growth is the key to sustainable long term growth. And reading what you wrote, sounded remarkable similar to the models that remove technology from the equation to study other factors that promote or hinder growth.
http:///forum/post/3169579
I don't follow your point at all. The pseudo-science of Economics couldn't exist w/o technology. Technology is not a wild card, it's the very basis of the discipline. If it weren't for the domestication of animals and the invention of plowing tools, we'd still be hunter/gatherers, like our Great Ape relatives.
I beg to differ. You're overlooking the VERY VERY important fact that the population continues to grow, but the space to house it (i.e. the planet) isn't. We not only can, but mathematically we most assuredly will, reach saturation (as opposed to satiation - there's a huge difference between the two.)
Technology isn't the issue - it has the potential to be infinite. However, without sufficient RESOURCES - food, fuel and water - technology is irrelevant.
You're post was all about population growth being the key to sustainable growth. And population growth is a slight factor.
In attempts to quantify and understand how different factors influence the economy, economists will attempt to isolate the different factors. What you wrote in that thread, is basically the conclusions one would reach if there was no change in technology.
The reason I say it is a wild card, (and many times ignored from economic models) is because it is all but impossible to quantify it. Since by definition it is currently unknown.
The view that was expresses, is a very pessimistic view. Although in the VERY long term theoretically accurate. Personally, imo worrying about the complete harvest of the earth resources is like worrying that in 5 billion years the sun will die.
There are finite resources, but that is in part what creates the values we assign to a specific resource or product. And may be less theoretic if we don't have technology changing what we consume. For example 100 years ago, we had very little use for crude oil. Today it makes the world go round. 100 years from now, there will be something else that takes its place thanks to technology.
My point is technology not population growth is the key to sustainable long term growth. And reading what you wrote, sounded remarkable similar to the models that remove technology from the equation to study other factors that promote or hinder growth.
