You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Larks comments on Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist [link] - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Dreaded_Anomaly 13 April 2012 03:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (20)
Tags: physics economics future

Comments (20)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 14 April 2012 01:10:37AM 3 points [-]

Circa 1700...

Second, agricultural limits impose a cap to growth lest we starve ourselves. I’m not talking about French invasion, the nead for enough priests to avoid damnation, etc. I’m talking about being able to grow enough food to support the craftsmen. I assume you’re happy to confine our conversation to England, foregoing the spectre of an industrial revolution, mass production, automating agriculture, international trade, etc.

Why should the economist forgoe all the resources of the light cone?

Comment author: Vaniver 14 April 2012 03:19:09AM 5 points [-]

Because exponential growth is faster than the light cone. If you allow the galaxy, instead of just Sol, you only add on a few centuries; you don't significantly change the underlying reality.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit