<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>One of my ongoing "salon" chats (me drinking tequila while
chatting with GPT about excruciatingly abstract ideations that
ramble through my head and GPT indulges me) has been on the
question of "alignment".</p>
<p>Not in the sense of how to coerce/seduce/constrain AI development
to follow a path that leads to it's *alignment* with human values
(whatever that is and do we even come close to aligning in any way
among ourselves).</p>
<p>Rather in the sense of trying to understand (perhaps with the
help of LLM's absurdly large base of human-knowledge convolved
with it's abusrdly large number of correlative/inferential
operations it can do on subsets of that data and my own
input/interactions) how the "enlightened self interest" of
something as near and dear as an individual human organism and
that of perhaps "humanity at large", "the biosphere", and even
broader, the unfolding universe as a Complex Adaptive System (at
least) or panConsciousness (at most?) might all be aligned if the
frame is pulled back far enough. If our conception of each of the
three terms: <i>enlightenment</i>; <i>self</i>; <i>interest</i>
are generous and broad and inclusive enough?</p>
<p>Woo woo!<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/3/25 1:18 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0e926b4c-97dd-4282-984f-fd3cb22ab917@gmail.com">IDK. I
get the feeling each of us is a little right and a little wrong.
The poisoning of the Memphis air by Grok
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://youtu.be/3VJT2JeDCyw?si=-zH1AIgCpJ_fcdPd"><https://youtu.be/3VJT2JeDCyw?si=-zH1AIgCpJ_fcdPd></a> is a
fantastic example of why Capitalism is (has been) failing, despite
its early success. It's not that we're all greedy pigs. Yes,
*some* of us might be. But even Elno isn't merely a greedy pig.
<br>
<br>
The problem is externalities, the things we can't even register
for whatever reason. If Pieter (and Marcus in a different way) are
right, what AI might be able to do that we have trouble doing is
taking in a wider array of data. Maybe not *all* the data, but a
much wider array than even our mega-machines like FedEx or Amazon
logistics can't manage.
<br>
<br>
The problem with that horizon is that there's a ton of work to be
done to get there. And poisoning poor minorities on the way to
that horizon isn't helping *us* do that work. Again, anyone who
uses Grok is actively poisoning Memphis. That's an externality. I
can't blame Grok users for being so stupid-or-evil because that's
what Capitalism does to us.
<br>
<br>
So, I end up landing with Jochen on this one. Even if there's a
possible way to thread this needle, we prolly won't make it. And
evil scum like Elno will help ensure our failure. But to be clear,
I have no children and will be dead soon. So c'est la vie:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2025/05/31/nx-s1-5418932/we-all-are-going-to-die-ernst-joni-town-hall-iowa-senator">https://www.npr.org/2025/05/31/nx-s1-5418932/we-all-are-going-to-die-ernst-joni-town-hall-iowa-senator</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 6/3/25 12:01 PM, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Roger Critchlow wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The core problem is that people are
greedy little pigs. Some are greedier than others and some
are more successful in pursuing their greed, but we're all
pigs and if offered the chance to take a little more for
ourselves, we take it. Scale that up and it's tragedies of
the commons all the way down.
<br>
<br>
-- rec --
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
and somehow, our elevating of individuals and groups to
positions of (political, spiritual, moral) authority/power over
ourselves (everyone else?) to try to either limit this greed or
mitigate its consequences has had mixed results and coupled with
(other) technologies has lead to an iterative "kicking the can
down the road" which keeps raising the stakes as the (only?) way
to avoid the current disaster we are facing?
<br>
<br>
Is there any evidence or suggestion that the emerging AI
overlords (monotheistic, pantheonic, animistic, panconscious)
will be more clever/able/powerful enough to end this cycle?
<br>
<br>
Or (as I think Pieter implies) this framing is just "all wrong"
and there is something like platonic "manifest destiny" that
will lead us forward through the chaos of our own technological
shockwaves? Is "the Singularity" just the instant when we
reach conceptual Mach1 and we catch up with our bow-wave in the
Kauffmanian "adjacent possible"? We just need to keep
accelerating until we break that "barrier"?
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net"><jofr@cas-group.net></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
One core problem is we have unleashed global capitalism
and seems to destroy the planet. Once the planet has been
destroyed and polluted it will be difficult to restore.
Communism does not work because nobody had an incentive to
work since nobody owned anything. Capitalism does not work
because nobody has an incentive to protect nature. It means
ruthless and relentless exploitation of everything to make
profit.
<br>
<br>
<br>
As much as I would like to be hopeful about the future I
don't see radical abundance at all. It is true that AI systems
become more and more powerful. They soon will be able to take
away even the good, creative jobs like writing, translating,
coding and designing. This means massive unemployment. In
combination with high inflation this will most likely be
devastating.
<br>
<br>
<br>
If we look at the past what happened if prices went up
radically and jobs were lost on a massive scale is that people
become outraged and angry and then some demagogue comes along
and deflects their anger and outrage towards group xy
[immigrants or black people or LGBTQ folks or some other
minority group] which is to blame for everything and he is the
only man who can solve it because he is a strong man, etc. and
we end up in a world world ruled by strongmen, each of them
ruler of a great power having a sphere of influence and
strategic interest in which they allow no opposition. In this
autocratic world the big and strong countries decide the fate
of their smaller neighbors and anyone who disagrees vanishes
in an artic gulag or horrible prison in mesoamerica.
<br>
<br>
<br>
As Edward O. Wilson said "The real problem of humanity is
the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval
institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically
dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis
overall."
<br>
<br>
<br>
-J.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------
<br>
From: Pieter Steenekamp <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pieters@randcontrols.co.za"><pieters@randcontrols.co.za></a>
<br>
Date: 6/2/25 2:06 AM (GMT+01:00)
<br>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
<br>
<br>
It seems I’m the only one here who’s feeling hopeful about
the future of humanity. I don’t think civilisation is about to
fall apart. In fact, I believe we’re heading towards a time of
radical abundance.
<br>
<br>
I was going to prove this by asking my crystal ball… but
sadly, the batteries are flat. So you’ll just have to trust me
when I say I know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.
<br>
<br>
Of course, many of you probably think you have the real
truth. And maybe you're right!
<br>
<br>
I guess the honest thing to say is: the future is
unknowable. We can all make good arguments, quote experts, and
write long replies—but there simply isn’t enough evidence to
say with high confidence what the future holds for humanity.
<br>
<br>
To end off: yes, I agree that without further innovation,
we could be in serious trouble. But a strong counterpoint is
that, over the last few hundred years, human creativity has
helped us overcome challenge after challenge.
<br>
<br>
Unless someone shares a new angle I haven’t heard yet,
I’ll leave it here and won’t post again on this thread.
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 22:41, Marcus Daniels
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com"><marcus@snoutfarm.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
Texas uses a lot more electricity than California
despite being a smaller economy. What’s interesting is that
there is no one sink for that power. It isn’t pumping
(although there is a lot of pumping), and it isn’t residential
air conditioning or data centers. It’s bigger everything and
an appetite to use power across the board.
<br>
<br>
*From: *Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> on
behalf of steve smith <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com"><sasmyth@swcp.com></a>
<br>
*Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 12:18 PM
<br>
*To: *friam@redfish.com <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a>
<br>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
<br>
<br>
As we know, I'm of the school of thought that (techno)
Utopian and Dystopian visions are two sides of the same coin:
<br>
<br>
<peak-oil>
<br>
<br>
I think peak oil (fossil-fuels) is a real thing,
now matter how much we slide the timescale with innovative
ways to suck harder or deeper and burn it more efficiently...
and in particular the side-effect of saturating the
atmo(bio)sphere with carbon particulates, polymers (e.g.
microplastics) and molecules (COn, CH4, etc) and the myriad
attendant not-very-healthy-to-most-life chloroflouros and
Nitrous-this-n-thats and ... on and on. We (in our
technofuturist way) pretend we have maxwell demons or
geni-rebottlers or pandora-box-refillers on the drawing boards
which will do their work faster than entropy and in the
particular techno-industrial concentrated-energy-fueled
version thereof.
<br>
<br>
Fossil fuels made us into an incredibly
energy-hungry/wasteful society... I'm a fan of Switzerland's
(nominal) 2000W society (aspiration), although the human
*animal's* basal metabolic rate is <100W avg and peaks at
200-300W (burst performance athlete). The the nominal
consumption for the western world is EU (5k) and US (10k) of
which a big part from the infrastructure and other "hidden"
sources like transport of food/goods across the planet for our
appetite and convenience. The "global south" is considered to
make it on 500-1500W. 8B humans at "subsistence" would
demand 8tW continuous and at US rates, 80tW continuous.
<br>
<br>
I haven't resolved this against DaveW's numbers
but I take his to be order-of-magnitude accurate on
principle. As we add supersonic and orbital-vacation
transport I suspect we might jack that another 10X... not to
(even) mention power-hungry crypto/AI demands? GPT (ironic
no?) helped me guestimate 40w/user (engaged) continuous
*currently*. A significant fraction of a carbon-frugal
"budget" and a measurable plus-up on our gluttonous US (and
even EU or CH) versions?
<br>
<br>
</peak-oil>
<br>
<br>
<EV-enthusiasm>
<br>
<br>
I'm a big fan/early adopter (tinkerer really) of
"electric vehicles" and renewable energy, but the numbers just
don't work. I was hypermiling my Honda CRX (fit my oversized
frame like a slipper or roller skate) long before there were
viable production electrics or hybrids. I had the back half
of a donor CRX ready to receive the rear differential of a
miata or rx7 (same stance, similar suspension mounts) with a
90's brushless DC motor as well as a pair of VW cabriolets
(running but one lame) as well for the same conception (early
2000s) when I scored a year1/gen1 Honda Insight (and a friend
spun the CRX out in the rain)... so I gave up on my
hypermiling (70mpg RT to Los Alamos, power up, coast home) for
thoughtful Insight-driving. All three of these models were
order 2k lbs. Most vehicles are/were 3k-6klbs.
<br>
<br>
Along came the Chevy Volt (2011) and in 2016 I
picked one up which had been used up... or at least the hybrid
battery (at 166k miles). A used (95k mile) battery and a lot
of tech work and it was back to full function. The VWs
never broke 40mpg hypermiling, the CRX clocked 70mpg in ideal
conditions, the Insight topped 50-55mpg with careful driving
(hard to hypermile a CVT), and with the PHEV nature of the
volt I can still pull >70mpg if I ignore the input from the
grid. The old battery is offering about 10kWh of capacity
for a homestead scale PV I'm assembling from $.10/W used solar
panels mainly to buffer for the PHEV charging. Unfortunately
the replacement Volt battery is finally getting lame and
replacement is such a huge effort this 15 year old vehicle
will go the way of many other 200k mile plus vehicles. I've
backfilled with a low(er) mileage 2014 Ford C-Max PHEV with
only about 10 miles (compared to new-30 in the volt) PHEV
which I'm getting
<br>
roughly the same effective MPG (still ignoring the
grid input). I'm looking for a Gen2 Volt which had 50mile
EV-only range (otherwise very similar to Gen1) as I might move
*all* my semi-local miles to Electric (and supply them with
used PV staged through the upcycled EV batteries?).
<br>
<br>
FWIW, the anti-EV stories about the extra weight
yielding accelerated brake/tire wear is specious in my
experience. My *driving habits* in an EV (or hypermiled
conventional/hybrid) obviate excess tire wear (no spinouts, no
uber-accelleration/braking) and even a thoughtless driver
likely gets more from regenerative braking than any excess
weight abuse... I also claim that being MPG/consumption
attunes my driving habits to fewer/shorter/slower trips. I
have owned a few gas-guzzling vehicles in my life, including
one I commuted too far in for a while... the 32 gallon tank
convolved with peaking gas prices and a 60 mile RT commute
that year should have warned me off... but instead I just
closed my eyes and ran my plastic through the card reader 1.5
times per week... my housing cost differential paid the bill
but without regard to the planet. I did give over to a
carpool in a 30mpg vehicle (shared 3 ways) for a while which
really beat the 15mpg 1-person I was
<br>
doing otherwise. I went through a LOT more tire
rubber and brake pads in that context than I ever did in years
of hybrid/EV ownership. Did I say specious? Or at least
apples-orangatans?
<br>
<br>
</EV-enthusiasm>
<br>
<br>
<Alt/Transport ideation>
<br>
<br>
I also have my 750W (foldable) eBike which is
(currently) impractical to me (closest services 10 miles of 4
lane) for anything but recreation/exercise and a 300W
lower-body exoskeleton, each of which has much better "mpg" in
principle (esp eBike) when hybridized with human
calorie-to-kinetic conversion. I've a friend (10 years my
senior) whose e-Recumbent-trike with similar specs is his
primary mode of utility transport (under 20 miles RT).
<br>
<br>
All that said, I don't think electromotifying
4-6klb hunks of steel and glass with environmental control
suitable for 0F-120F comfort for 4+ people while traveling at
60+mph and making 0-60 accellerations in under 6 seconds is
really a viable strategy for the 8B folks on the planet we
want to sell them to. Esp with a useful lifetime of <15
years?(planned obselescence aside?). Maybe
robo-taxi/rideshare versions in the context of (mostly)
walkable cities (nod to JennyQ) and public transport and
general local/regionalism is (semi) viable.
<br>
<br>
</Alt-Transport ideation>
<br>
<br>
<Local/Regionalism>
<br>
<br>
I've got strawberry plants making me (from
compost and sunlight) fewer berries in a season than I just
bought at the grocery imported from MX for <$3 (on
sale)... and my while I wait for my 3-sister's plantings to
produce a few months of carbs/protein at-best the modern
fossil-fuel/pollution global marketplace offers me the same
for probably several tens of dollars? As a seed-saving,
composter with a well (that could be pumped by solar but
isn't) my impact on planetary boundaries could be nil to
positive... but it is hard to scale this up even for myself,
much less proselytize and/or support my neighbors in matching
me. I cut Jeff Bezos off from my direct support (via Amazon
purchases) when he aligned himself with the other TechBros
aligning with the Orange Tyrant, so I may well have reduced my
manufacturing/transport appetite/consumption a little (small
amounts of that appetite moved to local traditional
store-forward versions as well as direct-mail
<br>
purchases from non-Amazon/big-box distributors).
<br>
<br>
</Local-Regionalism>
<br>
<br>
<TechnoUtopianism>
<br>
<br>
I am a reformed technoUtopian... I grew up on
"good old-fashioned future" science fiction (starting with
scientific romances from the early industrial age) and studied
and practiced my way into a science education and a technical
career/lifestyle and wanted to believe for the longest time
that we could always kick the can down the road a little
harder/smarter/further each time and/or just "drive faster".
And we are doing that somewhat effectively *still*, but in my
many decades I've got more time glancing in the rear-view
mirror to see the smoking wreckage behind us, as well as over
the horizon to see how many of the negative consequences of
our actions land on other folks who never came close to
enjoying the benefits of that "progress". I guess that means
this erstwhile libertarian has become a "self-loathing
liberal".
<br>
<br>
Or a convert to the Buddhist ideal of "Skillful
Means"?
<br>
<br>
</TechnoUtopianism>
<br>
<br>
On 6/1/25 10:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
<br>
<br>
I think you are underestimating how much progress
has been made with batteries in recent years.
<br>
California has large solar resources, and it is
not unusual that during the day the whole grid is powered by
solar. Here is from last week. Note the huge surge of
battery usage in the evening. Tens of gigawatts of
generation power are planned for offshore wind too.
<br>
<br>
Generally, though, I agree that much of the planet
is completely addicted to oil, and there’s no technology that
will yet handle air travel. Hydrogen might work, but it will
take time.
<br>
<br>
The way to break an addiction is to have the
addict hit rock bottom.
<br>
<br>
There need to be some scary climate events. The
prices for energy need to increase before people change their
ways. Redirecting energy into AI is one way to bring that to
fruition.
<br>
<br>
A chart of different colors Description
automatically generated
<br>
<br>
*From: *Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> on behalf of Prof
David West <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm"><profwest@fastmail.fm></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm"><mailto:profwest@fastmail.fm></a>
<br>
*Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 8:27 AM
<br>
*To: *friam@redfish.com <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><mailto:friam@redfish.com></a>
<br>
*Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, it is almost certain that there
will never be enough 'fossil fuel free power stations' to
supply needed energy for electric vehicles.
<br>
<br>
Data centers, driven in large part by AI demands
and cryptocurrency will leave nothing left over.
<br>
<br>
Some numbers:
<br>
<br>
Three Mile Island, which is being recommissioned
to supply power to a couple of Microsoft Data Centers, has a
capacity of 7 Terawatt hours(T/w/h) per year.
<br>
<br>
In 2022 data centers, globally, consumed 460 TWh,
by 2026 this is estimated to be 1,000 Twh. By 2040 projected
demand is 2,000-3,000 TWh.
<br>
<br>
Crypto adds 100-150 TWh in 2022, 200-300 in 2030,
and 400-600 in 2040.
<br>
<br>
Nuclear is unlikely to provide more than 25% of
this demand.
<br>
<br>
Between now and 2040, it will be necessary to
build 100 TMI-capacity nuclear plants to supply that 25%.
<br>
<br>
If solar is to supply the other 75%, it will
require between 66,000 and 80,000 square miles of solar
panels. (Don't know how many batteries, but the number is not
trivial.)
<br>
<br>
Wind power, for that 75%, will require 153,000 to
214,000 turbines, each requiring 50-60 acres of space beneath
them. (Also the problem of batteries.)
<br>
<br>
It takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear plant like
TMI, have no idea now many dollars.
<br>
<br>
Neither solar nor wind, nor combined, can be
installed fast enough to meet this demand and, again, have no
idea of cost.
<br>
<br>
Nothing left over for cars, the lights in your
home and office, or to charge your phone: unless, of course we
continue to rely on oil (shale and fracking), natural gas, and
coal.
<br>
<br>
davew
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025, at 6:24 AM, Pieter Steenekamp
wrote:
<br>
<br>
This is why I’m so excited about electric
vehicles—I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas! Add clean
fossil fuel free power stations into the mix, and voilà:
abundant clean energy, no miracle inventions required. Just
some clever tech and a whole lot of charging cables!
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 12:57, Jochen Fromm
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jofr@cas-group.net"><jofr@cas-group.net></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
I believe we all have a slighty distorted
view because we were all born long after industrialization has
started and have seen nothing but growth. Industrialization
started around 200 years ago in Great Britain and spread
shortly after to America and Europe. First by exploiting coal
and steam engines, later by oil and petrol engines. Tanks,
warplanes, warships as well as normal cars, planes and ships
all consume oil.
<br>
<br>
Richard Heinberg writes in his book "The
End of Growth": "with the fossil fuel revolution of the past
century and a half, we have seen economic growth at a speed
and scale unprecedented in all of human history. We harnessed
the energies of coal, oil, and natural gas to build and
operate cars, trucks, highways, airports, airplanes, and
electric grids - all the esential features of modern
industrial society. Through the one-time-only process of
extracting and burning hundreds of millions of years worth of
chemically stored sunlight, we built what appeared (for a
brief, shining moment) to be a perpetual-growth machine. We
learned to take what was in fact an extraordinary situation
for granted. It became normal [...] During the past 150 years,
expanding access to cheap and abundar fossil fuels enabled
rapid economic expansion at an average rate of about three
percent per year; economic planners began to take this situain
for granted. Financial systems
<br>
internalized the expectation of growth as
a promise of returns on investments."
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book">https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book</a>
<br>
<br>
Heinberg argues the time of cheap and
abundant fossil fuels has come to an end. There 1.5 billion
cars in the world which consume oil and produce CO2. Resources
are depleted while pollution and population have reached all
time highs. It is true that humans are innovative and
ingenious, especially in times of scarcity, necessity and
need, and we are able to find replacements for depleted
resources, but Heinberg argues in his book "Peak Everything:
that "in a finite world, the number of possible replacements
is also finite". For example we were able to replace the whale
oil by petroleum, but finding a replacement for petroleum is
much harder.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/peak-everything">https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/peak-everything</a>
<br>
<br>
Without oil no army would move, traffic
would cease, no container or cruise ship would be able to go
anywhere and therefore international trade and tourism would
stop. On the bright side no more plastic and CO2 pollution
either.
<br>
<br>
In his book "End of Growth" Heinberg
mentions "transition towns" as a path towards a more
sustainable society and an economy which is not based on
fossil-fuels.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://donellameadows.org/archives/rob-hopkins-my-town-in-transition/">https://donellameadows.org/archives/rob-hopkins-my-town-in-transition/</a>
<br>
<br>
French author Victor Hugo wrote 200 years
ago that "the paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of
the poor". If rich people start to realize this and help to
find a way to a more sustainable, livable society it would be
a start.
<br>
<br>
-J.
<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------
<br>
<br>
From: Pieter Steenekamp
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pieters@randcontrols.co.za"><pieters@randcontrols.co.za></a>
<br>
<br>
Date: 5/31/25 5:46 AM (GMT+01:00)
<br>
<br>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a>
<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth
<br>
<br>
I’ve always loved the Simon-Ehrlich bet
story—two clever guys betting on the future of the planet.
Ehrlich lost the bet, but the debate still runs circles today.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ourworldindata.org/simon-ehrlich-bet">https://ourworldindata.org/simon-ehrlich-bet</a>
<br>
<br>
This article nails it: over the long term,
prices mostly go down, not up, as innovation kicks in. We
don’t "run out" of resources—we get better at using them.
Scarcity shifts, but human creativity shifts faster.
<br>
<br>
The Limits to Growth folks had good
intentions, but the real limit seems to be how fast we can
adapt and rethink. And so far, we’re doing okay—messy, uneven,
but okay.
<br>
<br>
Turns out, betting against human ingenuity
is the real risky business.
<br>
<br>
On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 21:51, steve smith
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com"><sasmyth@swcp.com></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
REC -
<br>
<br>
Very timely... I did a deep
dive/revisit (also met the seminal work in college in the 70s)
into Limits to Growth and World3 before the Stockholm workshop
on Climate (and other existential threats) Complexity Merle
wrangled in 2019.... and was both impressed and disappointed.
Rockstrom and folks were located right across the water from
us where we met but to my knowledge didn't engage... their
work was very complementary but did not feel as relevant to me
then as it does now.
<br>
<br>
In the following interview, I felt he
began to address many of the things I (previously) felt were
lacking in their framework previoiusly. It was there all the
time I'm sure, I just didn't see it and I think they were not
ready to talk as broadly of implications 5 years ago as they
are now?
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6_3mOgvrN4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6_3mOgvrN4</a>
<br>
<br>
Did anyone notice the swiss village
inundated by debris and meltwater from the glacier collapse
uphill? Signs of the times or "business as usual"?
<br>
<br>
- SAS
<br>
<br>
On 5/30/25 12:16 PM, Roger Critchlow
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2025/05/20/limits-to-growth-was-right-about-overshoot-and-collapse-new-data/">https://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2025/05/20/limits-to-growth-was-right-about-overshoot-and-collapse-new-data/</a><br>
<br>
I remember the Limits to Growth
from my freshman year in college. Now Hackernews links to the
above in which some people argue that we've achieved the
predicted overshoot for the business as usual scenario and the
subsequent collapse begins now. Enjoy the peak of human
technological development.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>