will on Warpcast

GIGAMΞSH pfp

It’s surprising to me how little scrutiny this claim receives. Maybe it’s true, but haven’t many species had stable populations for millions of years? Basing it only on human history seems like a sampling error.

3 replies

4 recasts

31 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

Society != species

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

GIGAMΞSH pfp

also: society ≠ sharks 🙂 It seems possible to me that tech enables continued increase in well being without infinite growth, and maybe declining birth rate is evidence of it.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp

Growth is important for human psychology. Hedonistic adaption.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

will pfp

https://x.com/wminshew/status/1873946739226665440

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

GIGAMΞSH pfp

Growth is good! But I think what's more relevant to democracy is social cohesion. If the majority of growth is going to the top 0.01% in a given society, social cohesion and democracy are still cooked.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

GIGAMΞSH pfp

I haven't read it but its my understand that this book makes a strong case that econ growth is being constrained specifically because of too much wealth inequality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

will pfp

the results were debunked when you separate out the return on unimproved land from the rest of capital. Turns out the major issue isn't capital at all but land reform. Land reform IS a major issue, and would actually unlock a tremendous amount of growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

will pfp

in a very real sense, our inability to handle land properly is killing our society. You can see it in rents and housing prices directly, and indirectly in the cost of services (which must be high enough so that providers can live locally)

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

will pfp

if you look at the chart again, a lack of growth is about the absolute worst thing we can do for social cohesion

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

GIGAMΞSH pfp

That's interesting, thanks (re: Piketty). I should have been more specific. IMO the assumption that needs to be questioned more is econ growth always requires population growth. It seems to be fueling anti democratic energy.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

will pfp

oh.. is that an assumption? it's certainly the easiest way to grow, but i am not aware of anyone serious arguing it's a strict requirement (not that i am paying much attn to that stuff anyway) fwiw i don't actually think immigration ~is fueling anti democratic energy, it just happens to be the scape goat. I think it is our land policies that are strangling the middle class (education & hc are the other two major issues, but land is the most important). People aren't experiencing growth, and it makes them view the world more zero sum / pvp. When they take out their anger, they take it out on the easiest targets aka immigrants. With proper land policies, a rising tide would lift ~all boats and people wouldn't be upset about immigration, and they might even love it it's ~kind of like when people blame developers for rising rents https://www.md-a.co/p/one-funeral-at-a-time

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

GIGAMΞSH pfp

yeah the pro-natalist movement is built on that assumption and it seems like a growing number of the tech elite are on board. but we'll see how AI changes things. 😅 I'll read that tonight, thanks

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

will pfp

that's confusing bc the whole point of technology is to do more with less (aka increase productivity aka growth)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction