OK. But anthills don't degrow. They grow, then exist at some particular scale, then end. So what can we learn that will sort our problems rather than us coming to a similar end?
I keep thinking that one gets a break from entropy at the beginning of development of a system...there is the growth phase, then the mature phase, then the end. What is the pattern of dissipation over the life of a system?
You don't think that organisms made up of cells behave differently from ecosystems made up of different entities? There is no similar evolutionary driver for ecosystems to be self-propagating as organisms, I think. And organisms do not have a perpetual growth driver because of the physiological constraints of living tissue. I guess ecosystems have physiological constraints in terms of the conditions under which they live, but they are more like resource constraints than physiological constraints??? What I'm trying to get at here is whether the things that you are trying to compare with one another are actually similar enough at base to be compared. Do they have the same types of constraints? Physiological limits e.g. animals that are simply too big to move in order to get the food they need, seem somewhat different from resource limits. I get the comparison of economy with ecosystem much more than with ant or ant hill. But I see your point that all have different fractal levels.
I am not sure that there is a valid comparison between an organism (human) and a colony (ant hill) and an ecosystem (economy or plant/animal system). All of them do go through a progression of youth to maturity to senescence. Organism controlled by cellular factors driven by genetics. Ant hill by death of queen, which is cellular at one level but behavioural at another. Ecosystem through use of resources or external change. None of these 'degrow', they end. Hmmm...
Also, according to evolutionary concepts ants 'want' more ants. Humans 'want' more humans. Organisms replicate to increase their own numbers - there are built in physiological/behavioural mechanisms driving replication because if there aren't such mechanisms, the species dies out. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Equity and non-growth would seem to be in direct opposition to a whole lot of evolutionary forces!
I am not sure I understand the question “Why do economies” grow beyond the simplistic answer that when you combine people continually wanting more/better good services, with the inclusion of population growth in the more, economies must grow by definition if they comprise the production and consumption of goods and services. If people want less, then the natural state of the economy will be to shrink. I think questions about “economies” are often backwards because they try to take the people out of the question (and describe the ‘system’ mathematically) while economies are actually all about people. In contrast to ecosystems, which may relate to people, but don’t by necessity.
I want to understand this more deeply. Thanks for sharing
I'm going to be pondering on the concept of everything simply being a trip back to entropy for some time!
OK. But anthills don't degrow. They grow, then exist at some particular scale, then end. So what can we learn that will sort our problems rather than us coming to a similar end?
I keep thinking that one gets a break from entropy at the beginning of development of a system...there is the growth phase, then the mature phase, then the end. What is the pattern of dissipation over the life of a system?
Just to check, what definition of “economy” are you using in your arguments?
Still trying to understand the medium document - I put a comment there.
Thanks. i will go read the papers before I reply.
BTW I really really don't like that Wanaka tree!! Emblem of tourism stupidity.
You don't think that organisms made up of cells behave differently from ecosystems made up of different entities? There is no similar evolutionary driver for ecosystems to be self-propagating as organisms, I think. And organisms do not have a perpetual growth driver because of the physiological constraints of living tissue. I guess ecosystems have physiological constraints in terms of the conditions under which they live, but they are more like resource constraints than physiological constraints??? What I'm trying to get at here is whether the things that you are trying to compare with one another are actually similar enough at base to be compared. Do they have the same types of constraints? Physiological limits e.g. animals that are simply too big to move in order to get the food they need, seem somewhat different from resource limits. I get the comparison of economy with ecosystem much more than with ant or ant hill. But I see your point that all have different fractal levels.
I am not sure that there is a valid comparison between an organism (human) and a colony (ant hill) and an ecosystem (economy or plant/animal system). All of them do go through a progression of youth to maturity to senescence. Organism controlled by cellular factors driven by genetics. Ant hill by death of queen, which is cellular at one level but behavioural at another. Ecosystem through use of resources or external change. None of these 'degrow', they end. Hmmm...
Also, according to evolutionary concepts ants 'want' more ants. Humans 'want' more humans. Organisms replicate to increase their own numbers - there are built in physiological/behavioural mechanisms driving replication because if there aren't such mechanisms, the species dies out. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Equity and non-growth would seem to be in direct opposition to a whole lot of evolutionary forces!
I am not sure I understand the question “Why do economies” grow beyond the simplistic answer that when you combine people continually wanting more/better good services, with the inclusion of population growth in the more, economies must grow by definition if they comprise the production and consumption of goods and services. If people want less, then the natural state of the economy will be to shrink. I think questions about “economies” are often backwards because they try to take the people out of the question (and describe the ‘system’ mathematically) while economies are actually all about people. In contrast to ecosystems, which may relate to people, but don’t by necessity.