Comments on: Limits To Growth http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:09:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Overcoming Bias : Limits of Imagination http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-525593 Overcoming Bias : Limits of Imagination Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:45:41 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-525593 [...] finite universe simply cannot continue our exponential growth rates for a million years. For trillions of years thereafter, [...] [...] finite universe simply cannot continue our exponential growth rates for a million years. For trillions of years thereafter, [...]

]]> By: The Amateur Thinker » Links of the day http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-507756 The Amateur Thinker » Links of the day Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:31:07 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-507756 [...] Limits to growth. We have grown used to continuous economic growth. But such growth cannot continue forever. No [...] [...] Limits to growth. We have grown used to continuous economic growth. But such growth cannot continue forever. No [...]

]]> By: Overcoming Bias : Innovation: Growth Industry? http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-483967 Overcoming Bias : Innovation: Growth Industry? Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:32:27 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-483967 [...] course in the long run innovation must run out, and then we’ll have a long stable future with little innovation. But I expect the [...] [...] course in the long run innovation must run out, and then we’ll have a long stable future with little innovation. But I expect the [...]

]]> By: Overcoming Bias : On Clark And Caplan http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-473031 Overcoming Bias : On Clark And Caplan Thu, 19 May 2011 12:05:16 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-473031 [...] to most of our descendants. Our special dreamtime era of rapid growth and rising living standards can’t last long – within a few centuries, average consumption will probably be way down from [...] [...] to most of our descendants. Our special dreamtime era of rapid growth and rising living standards can’t last long – within a few centuries, average consumption will probably be way down from [...]

]]> By: Overcoming Bias : This is the Dream Time http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433719 Overcoming Bias : This is the Dream Time Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:50:05 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433719 [...] But if income only doubled every century, in a million years that would be a factor of 10^3000, which seems impossible to achieve with only the 10^70 atoms of our galaxy available by then.  Yes we have seen [...] [...] But if income only doubled every century, in a million years that would be a factor of 10^3000, which seems impossible to achieve with only the 10^70 atoms of our galaxy available by then.  Yes we have seen [...]

]]> By: The Stationary State « Rick Weber's Blog http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433642 The Stationary State « Rick Weber's Blog Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:32:46 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433642 [...] Stationary State Posted on September 27, 2009 by rickweber This post is a response to this post on Overcoming [...] [...] Stationary State Posted on September 27, 2009 by rickweber This post is a response to this post on Overcoming [...]

]]> By: Overcoming Bias : Poor Folks Do Smile http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433526 Overcoming Bias : Poor Folks Do Smile Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:49:54 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433526 [...] I don’t see our far future as a repugnant doom.  Yes, I doubt we can maintain current growth rates to have 103000 descendants in a million years, since only 1070 [...] [...] I don’t see our far future as a repugnant doom.  Yes, I doubt we can maintain current growth rates to have 103000 descendants in a million years, since only 1070 [...]

]]> By: Marcio Rocha Pereira http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433507 Marcio Rocha Pereira Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:44:59 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433507 Human beings are not driven to maximize pleasure. Instead, pleasure is a tool to drive human beings to maximize other things (i seem to think we are currently unsure exactly what, though). Bryan seems to imply that improve must mean have more pleasure, but we are much more complicated than that... Human beings are not driven to maximize pleasure. Instead, pleasure is a tool to drive human beings to maximize other things (i seem to think we are currently unsure exactly what, though). Bryan seems to imply that improve must mean have more pleasure, but we are much more complicated than that…

]]> By: fenn http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433459 fenn Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:06:13 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433459 sounds like warfare's not going anywhere sounds like warfare’s not going anywhere

]]> By: nick http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/limits-to-growth.html#comment-433361 nick Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:33:23 +0000 http://www.overcomingbias.com/?p=19841#comment-433361 If it turns out that baryon number is not conserved, with the result that we can convert neutrons and protons into photons, we should count photons instead of atoms. Given that there are over 20 orders of magnitude worth of frequency to work with, we may be able to store 10^30 bits per photon, with the result that the neutrons and protons in our Sun, converted into photons of average energy blue, could store about 10^97 bits. Of course, we will need at least a few leptons around to actually process that information and recycle photons. That's classical data storage -- entangled photons may be far better still, at least in terms of raw information capacity. That gives us some more room at the bottom, but still sub-exponential unless, as mentioned, we rarely collapse qubit superpositions (i.e. if qubit-minds rarely actually think about anything but just keep storing more memories). If it turns out that baryon number is not conserved, with the result that we can convert neutrons and protons into photons, we should count photons instead of atoms. Given that there are over 20 orders of magnitude worth of frequency to work with, we may be able to store 10^30 bits per photon, with the result that the neutrons and protons in our Sun, converted into photons of average energy blue, could store about 10^97 bits. Of course, we will need at least a few leptons around to actually process that information and recycle photons. That’s classical data storage — entangled photons may be far better still, at least in terms of raw information capacity.

That gives us some more room at the bottom, but still sub-exponential unless, as mentioned, we rarely collapse qubit superpositions (i.e. if qubit-minds rarely actually think about anything but just keep storing more memories).

]]>