> Of course, this is not our main source of growth at the moment. But surely it could be?
Yeah, but for how long?
Exponential economist meets finite physicist: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
It makes me so happy to finally start seeing others on HN post links from the Do The Math blog. If I could make one website mandatory reading for all policy makers, economists, etc., this would be it.
Well now you're just playing semantic games with the word "growth".
Never mind the details of the economy, population growth is the killer.
As long as the net ecosystem gain per person is negative rather than positive we are accelerating at a wall.
If the original post had said that population growth needed to be stopped, I'd have agreed with it. But that's not what it said.
The whole thrust of that comment and the ensuing conversation is the nature of economic growth. That's not "semantic games," that's a different topic.
I re-read just now and yes, you're right. Sorry about that.
Of course, this is not our main source of growth at the moment. But surely it could be?