← Back to context

Comment by nathan_douglas

4 hours ago

This page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/pre... explains in more detail what they mean. It's a pretty clean and effective explanation.

> Technology advances rapidly and affects us all, with new products and production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle. This is the basis for sustained economic growth, which results in a better standard of living, health and quality of life for people around the globe.

> However, this was not always the case. Quite the opposite – stagnation was the norm throughout most of human history. Despite important discoveries now and again, which sometimes led to improved living conditions and higher incomes, growth always eventually levelled off.

...

> Technology advances rapidly and affects us all, with new products and production methods replacing old ones in a never-ending cycle. This is the basis for sustained economic growth

since the end of the 19th century...

Am I missing something?

How can they assert that the current trajectory of economic growth won't end in stagnation, like every other growth spurt throughout history?

Sure, the economic growth of the last 150 years is unprecedented in history. But so was the second most significant period of economic growth before it stagnated.

There was more likely a series of 2K-4K golden ages diffused across areas globally 5-1K BCE where stagnation wasn't the rule.

We've probably yet to even come close to that eden-like experience.

Stagnation is environmentally sustainable. Constant creation-destruction cycles will ultimately deplete the environment

  • Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land. Population growth is stagnating and will peak in less than 100 years.

    Neo-Malthusianism is as bunk as Malthusianism was

    • > Innovation is such that efficiency increase requires fewer resources and land.

      ...to produce the same output. Growth requires greater output though.

      Just look at the timeline of energy consumption [0]. Either you're wrong and innovation requires more resources, or you're right and there's no direct relation between innovation and overall resource usage.

      [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption