[piaste]

This is some of the shallowest, most misleading insight I've ever read.

"Human achievement will probably reach a limit at some point" is effectively an empty statement. Even if you could take its truth for granted, it is completely useless information.

There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a limit that is unknowable and unguessable. Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way - i.e. try to achieve as much as you can - until that limit becomes known or guessable in some way.

(This argument is basically a very slight variation on Russell's teapot.)

[feral]

I think the strongly worded logic in your post is questionable.

> There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a limit that is unknowable and unguessable.

Thought experiment:

Situation 1: I rely on a single food source, which I know is unlimited.

Situation 2: I rely on a single food source, which I'm not sure is unlimited, but I can't guess when it'll run out.

> Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way, until that limit becomes known or guessable in some way

Really? Because if I was in situation 2, I would be preparing a contingency. Trying to find another food source. By the time the limit of my current source became knowable, it might be too late and I would starve. The right time to prepare is from a position of strength.

That's an actionable difference - do you think this is a valid counterexample to your logic? Or is something not appropriate?

[piaste]

Yes, I was referring to the subject at hand - human achievement / technology / innovation - not making a universal statement about everything that may have limits.

But I can see how my post could read that way. I'll make that clearer.

[crimsonalucard]

Your argument applies to science fiction and other works that make grand speculations about the future. The future is not knowable thus it is useless and misleading to speculate according to your argument. Your counter argument is far more shallow and misleading.

Our progress towards the future happens regardless of a limit. So why write science fiction? Why write fiction at all? Because we're human. I speculate, therefore I am.

Either way your argument doesn't address the heart of the matter. Is my speculation correct? Or is it incorrect? You have failed to logically address this argument. On the other hand I have only said that one outcome is far more likely than the other, I have not been definitive about it either.

[elcapitan]

The simple logical flaw in GP's argumentation is that it summarizes rather abstract phenomena (human inventions, potential of startups) to compare it against concrete, limited phenomena (oil production). To make that jump, that assumption would have to be proven.

[crimsonalucard]

It is only seemingly a flaw. Concrete phenomena and abstract phenomena are in fact the same thing. For abstract phenomena to even exist they must be concrete and thus limited by the concreteness of the physical world.