On one hand, I guess it's good we have creative, unbounded thinking.
Sadly - I'm starting to think that most Engineers have never opened a book outside of Engineering, certainly not any history, ethics, politics or economics books.
--> Human potential is definitely unlimited.
Since the dawn of recorded history - and even beforehand - we have, by enlarge, almost always been innovating and moving forward. From neolithic, to ancient Egypt, to antiquity, to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial revolution, Modern era and information era - it's always been moving forward. Even the 'dark ages' were not really dark, only compared to those writing history in East Roman Empire / Byzantium.
My Grandparents were born on farms. No electricity. No running water. No radio, tv, cars, radio, internet. They passed away very recently.
What makes your skepticism a little funny is that right now on planet earth there is more 'innovation' going on than at any time in all of history. It's like an 'innovation explosion'. It's such a big shift that we are in a new epoch.
-----> As for your interesting ideas (aging death option, work only if needed) ...
You must be young. I don't think you've met enough types of people yet. Your treatise is missing a moral foundation (arguably), more importantly the nature of life. 'Cures disease'. Is 'dwarfism' a disease? What about being just a little short? What about sagging eyes from age 40-90? What about kids born with super genes? Or blue skin because their parents think it's cool?
These ethical questions will have to be answered long before we even start to fix things like 'cancer'. But even then - is cancer at age 80+ really a disease, or is it just literally 'death'?
More pragmatically, you're missing the bit about distribution of surpluses. The age old question. "nsure that working for a living is optional". Working for a living is already optional. It's called 'welfare'. Some of my neighbours do it. One guy, on my street collects his welfare every month and spends 4 days high on crack, and then the rest of the month sleeping in the park. Is this what you mean? Because I can assure you that people in this state are not happy, and it's a far more complicated thing than we know. So, should people who work their entire lives, very hard, and take great risk ... have to pay for his crack habit?
It's just one example, but it's the biggest issue missed when any of these techie types start to talk about 'the future'. Technology will surely improve our lives on the whole - but the issue of distribution is as old as time, and technology will probably only exacerbate, not solve the issue. At the foundation is both an understanding of human nature - and also a moral cause. The later of which is even harder to found, we do it today by rough consensus, not necessarily by understanding.
I wish more techies would study finance and history, I think these conversations would be different and we'd be better at solving problems.
More just "energy use explosion." We've probably already used half of all oil available to us (at the prices under which we can do what we do now). It took nature some hundreds of millions of years to accumulate so much easily usable energy. We've released half of it in just around 100 years. All the projections that "prove" that we can continue are always based on the "current use" and never on the "projected growth" (like noted: just 7% yearly growth means doubling in 10 years).
" It took nature some hundreds of millions of years to accumulate so much easily usable energy"
You're thinking in terms of an epoch.. namely our current one.
Energy sources change over time.
Oil is just the latest incarnation.
Nuclear is the next, obvious solution, when fools who don't actually understand it get out of the way.
There is enough known Uranium deposits to power the world for 100's of years and this is assuming: A) ancient, inefficient reactors (we have made so much progress, but not allowed to build newer things, and can do even more), and B) we haven't used any new fancy techniques or explored for more Uranium in 50 years.
Your bit about Oil is a little wrong (we don't know what 1/2 is): we keep finding new deposits. Using new tech (indirect drilling, undersea, deep digging, Oil Sands, more efficient extraction) we keep moving back 'peak Oil' they keep telling us we're supposed to be at. Eventually we will, but something better will be available by then.
We could go Nuclear today and wipe out Co2 emissions and cut energy costs by more than 50%. Probably more.
Fusion is maybe not that far off.
When the Nuclear and Fusion revolution take off - the 'Oil' era will look to people living in that era as 'wood burning' looks to us now - totally arcane, inefficient and 'low power'.
Do the proper research, the nuclear option is much less promising as the proponents claim (again, "wishful thinking" not the facts). Again not under the assumption of zero growth that they use. Check the real numbers and the technologies known to actually work, and see how long the "growth" is physically possible. That's our subject: the possibility of continual growth.
"Do the proper research, the nuclear option is much less promising as the proponents claim"
I agree that Nuclear Tech today has problems, but we haven't made real investments in 50 years. Do you realize how far airline, rail, and road safety has come in that time?
I firmly believe that if we put as much $$$ into Nuclear - as we have in Solar - that we'd be way past the safety problems.
Also - there is absolutely no physical limit to 'growth'.
Yes - commodities are limited and so is space. But we are making better use of both at an exponential level.
As some things become scarce, the prices rises, we figure out how to better make use of them.
My friend: Plastic.
Plastic did not exist 100 years ago. It was not 'on the horizon'. Nobody was even dreaming of it. But imagine life without plastic. We couldn't make a thing without it!
So 'plastic'. A single, new, and unforeseen innovation that fundamentally changed everything. And that's only one of many innovations of that era.
What is the next 'plastic'?
Will we be able to simply forge metals or other minerals as we need them in a fusion reactor?
If fusion ever works - this is within reach.
Fusion means not only cheap energy, put possibly the ability to make many elements on the periodic table like Star Trek.
Again - the possibilities are unlimited.
As long as we don't wipe ourselves out, this will go on forever.
That said - we measure 'growth' in dollars, and we don't measure dollars in anything :). I suppose you could make the comparative value argument for real growth, and that it depends on 'happiness' or some sort of intangible.
At least in classical economic terms - growth will go on ad nauseum.
Ever considered what plastic is made of? Ever tried to read why the fusion rectors don't work? Ever asked some who knows physics if "forging metals in a fusion reactor" has any scientific sense?
The possibilities are unlimited only in unsupported dreams.
On one hand, I guess it's good we have creative, unbounded thinking.
Sadly - I'm starting to think that most Engineers have never opened a book outside of Engineering, certainly not any history, ethics, politics or economics books.
--> Human potential is definitely unlimited.
Since the dawn of recorded history - and even beforehand - we have, by enlarge, almost always been innovating and moving forward. From neolithic, to ancient Egypt, to antiquity, to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial revolution, Modern era and information era - it's always been moving forward. Even the 'dark ages' were not really dark, only compared to those writing history in East Roman Empire / Byzantium.
My Grandparents were born on farms. No electricity. No running water. No radio, tv, cars, radio, internet. They passed away very recently.
What makes your skepticism a little funny is that right now on planet earth there is more 'innovation' going on than at any time in all of history. It's like an 'innovation explosion'. It's such a big shift that we are in a new epoch.
-----> As for your interesting ideas (aging death option, work only if needed) ...
You must be young. I don't think you've met enough types of people yet. Your treatise is missing a moral foundation (arguably), more importantly the nature of life. 'Cures disease'. Is 'dwarfism' a disease? What about being just a little short? What about sagging eyes from age 40-90? What about kids born with super genes? Or blue skin because their parents think it's cool?
These ethical questions will have to be answered long before we even start to fix things like 'cancer'. But even then - is cancer at age 80+ really a disease, or is it just literally 'death'?
More pragmatically, you're missing the bit about distribution of surpluses. The age old question. "nsure that working for a living is optional". Working for a living is already optional. It's called 'welfare'. Some of my neighbours do it. One guy, on my street collects his welfare every month and spends 4 days high on crack, and then the rest of the month sleeping in the park. Is this what you mean? Because I can assure you that people in this state are not happy, and it's a far more complicated thing than we know. So, should people who work their entire lives, very hard, and take great risk ... have to pay for his crack habit?
It's just one example, but it's the biggest issue missed when any of these techie types start to talk about 'the future'. Technology will surely improve our lives on the whole - but the issue of distribution is as old as time, and technology will probably only exacerbate, not solve the issue. At the foundation is both an understanding of human nature - and also a moral cause. The later of which is even harder to found, we do it today by rough consensus, not necessarily by understanding.
I wish more techies would study finance and history, I think these conversations would be different and we'd be better at solving problems.