Comment by ef4 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ef4 | Hacker News Reader

> Humans are part of a universe where time is measured in billions of years and economics is largely irrelevant.

Only if you have a narrow understanding of "economics".

Economics is the study of scarcity and how to deal with it. For example, arguing that energy is less scarce on Mercury than Mars is making an economic argument about which is a more desirable place to be. Given the myriad constraints on a colony, the only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison between two possible colonies is to invoke economic concepts.

The survival of the species very much depends on economics. We're in a race between the capabilities of our growing capital and the risks that could destroy us.

Much of what we do and have today would seem totally impractical to people from poorer eras. Likewise, solutions to problems that seem impractical to us (like geoengineering and space colonies) can become very practical given enough economic growth.

It's physicists bias. Economics doesn't make very accurate or precise predictions. I mean, economic systems are complicated, it's not really possible to foresee all of the influences on a system. It's not an attack on economists, it's just how it is.

Physicists, however, expect 5 digits of precision.

Physicists are just as stumped by complex and chaotic systems as the rest of us.

At least the physicists' models let you land on Mars.

And an accurate, predictable model of economics would pay for the trip.

I don't think interplanetary travel will ever make economic sense. It's for other reasons that we reach for the stars.

Depends on your definition of economic success. If you define it as the ability to distribute resources necessary for survival, and extend that to the species, then interplanetary travel is the only eventuality that makes economic sense.

http://xkcd.com/435/

5 digits accuracy ... that's essentially being entirely wrong :).

(and for various new physics theories I'd argue that 5 digits accuracy is not actually there, and there's the matter of the holes in the theories, like gravity)

>It's not an attack on economists, it's just how it is.

If it's not, it should be. Economics are a dismal science, a tiny part math (quite simple at that), and huge parts of hand waving and ideology.

The "not being able to predict shit" is not some accidents, it steps from the whole "hand waviness" of it all.

Agreed. Space travel may be more interesting to read about, but, frankly, economics is more consequential. Before you can do anything, you have to think about what it will cost, and who will pay for it. Just ask NASA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com