Hacker News Reader

Comment by 01100011 | Hacker News Reader

> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources

Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term.

I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, but assuming it is true I think we've come a long way in changing that and the future looks even better.

View on HN

> Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less

Actually no, we haven't and we don't. Carbon emissions are still growing.

Classic mistake: You're confusing relative and absolute reductions. We have reduced relative ecological impact a lot, but overall impact has been growing along the way.

This is also called Jevon’s paradox:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Today I learned!

Pedantic corrections:

- It's the Jevons Paradox (not Jevon's), named after William Stanley Jevons

- non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Carbon emissions are decreasing in Europe despite economic growth. Nature is getting in better shape as well.

Can you explain how nature is getting in better shape? Everything I have read contradicts your statement.

There's more forest in Europe now than a hundred years ago.

Well, Europe (and US) also outsourced most of their dirties industries to China...

One way technology can really decrease consumption is by turning humans to machines. If you are essentially a CPU, your energy consumption would likely be very low yet your computational power and lifespan could be much higher. This way earth could support a much higher quantity of "humans", being mostly electric, it could even leave the confinements of earth, this way freeing earth.

The only challenge left is to maintain cognitive growth drives when you're based on electricity, rather than hormones among other chemicals.

This is only viable if you're willing to sacrifice the biosphere in the process.

You can only increase efficiency so far. I do agree that a reduction in population would result in lower resource usage, but that's an economic slowdown, i.e. the opposite of growth.

Isn't economic retraction the opposite of economic growth?

You're right, that's what I meant to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com