But constant tearing up of streets isn't necessary for life - you can have construction going in stages without a permanent state of constant construction.
Construction is a sign of growth usually, which is not entirely the same as life.
No city has literally all the streets torn up at once. Which means by definition all road construction is in stages. I’m somewhat puzzled how what you’re proposing is different from the status quo
This also means we need alternate routes or extra lanes or some kind of redundancy which asked this kind of work? So higher taxes?
For example, most of the molecules in your body are regenerated/replaced on a fairly rapid timeline - seconds when it comes to things like ATP, minutes to hours when it comes to blood sugar, days to weeks when it comes to skin cells and hair and intestinal lining cells, and longer timelines for most other structures, with a few exceptions like much of the bone structure (and even that is dynamic to some extent).
However, your body size doesn't grow despite all this construction continually taking place, does it? You lose as much as you gain, you're in a healthy steady-state condition.
Now, if your body is infested with parasites, ticks and lice and tapeworms and roundworms and malarial protozoans, and they're growing happily, while negatively impacting your overall health, I suppose that's something your neoclassical economist would call 'strong growth of the investor class'...
Welcome to investment capitalism and the financialization of the economy! Not the same as main street capitalism and a healthy industrial economy, is it?
Your value judgment on investment is, ah, popular in some circles, but its placement on the Y Combinator news forum is ironic.
And unlimited growth is followed by resource exhaustion and death.
This is only true in the physical sense if the universe is singular *and finite. Which it appears not to be.
It is never true in the sense of technological, economic, and societal progress. There is an infinite amount of growth possible in those areas. Because that kind of growth leads to more efficient use of resources, or the discovery of new resources and knowledge which extends how far we can go. And this repeats in an endless cycle.
Take virtual reality (metaverse) for example. That would allow for massive expansion of the virtual space in which we can operate and massive reduction of the physical space we need to occupy.
As another example, we could eventually learn how to gather up all the raw material (hydrogen) in so called “empty space” and use it to manufacture a new planet. There is nothing in the laws of physics preventing us from doing this. The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
So there really is no rational basis for the kind of pessimism you are advocating. So long as people are allowed to critique existing ideas and develop new ones, we have an infinity of progress ahead of us.
Laws of physics aren't negotiable. Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova. And with that constraint we face a nearly closed system of resources, except for solar energy and maybe a few asteroids.
> The only thing we lack is the knowledge of how to do it.
Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them. Those people have all the basic needs as well as years of education just to sustain today's innovation.
Nobody said that. We only need space, matter, energy and knowledge.
This last part is mostly what we're missing now, the limiting factor, as the universe has plenty of space, matter and energy!
> Barring very unlikely breakthroughs humans will remain a single planet species until the sun goes supernova
Hard disagree, as some already have their sight on Mars. We are an ambitious species!
> Again even if more innovation is possible there are only so many people with enough resources to discover them
There're over 7 billion of us, and knowledge diffusion techniques (especially online) mean innovation is accelerating - so the limiting factor won't be limiting for long.
Given than facts don't support your pessimist view, I wonder why you think this way?
Mars is not habitable for humans and has never been touched by human hands. Ambition won't overcome that fact. Should we exhaust the earth to establish an unsustainable colony on Mars?
> Given than facts don't support your pessimist view,
My you are confident. The fact is there are no human colonies off planet earth. Even the space stations that exist aren't self sustaining. The future is not yet a fact, so we're both speculating.
I don’t see how there could be a limit (other than the laws of physics which actually prevent none of what has been described in this conversation).