[grufus]

One should not confuse growth as in producing more and more stuff with growth as in progress.

Of course you can't produce more stuff ad infinitum. A balance to reach net-zero stuff is necessary to be sustainable.

But nothing prevents you from advancing technology ad infinitum. It can be sustainable to keep progressing. You just can't exhaust the resources around you, but you don't have to to keep progressing.

[kilgnad]

No. Technology production requires an energy input. It's fundamental physics. Reversing entropy requires an energy input, and technology is essentially entropy reversing.

At the more scientific level you can see this occurring by simply correlating energy expenditure per country per capita with the technological achievements of the respective country. Western countries are among the top energy users and technology developers.

The only good thing about technology is it's relatively low rate of decay... or in essence low rate of velocity in the descent back into a high entropy state. Knowledge once gained is kept with minimal additional energy input. But make no mistake, the crystallization of knowledge itself requires a high energy input.

Transfer and translations of these technologies also requires energy input which explains why technology doesn't easily cross certain physical boundaries like the borders between countries.

[yuhaa98]

And you are saying we are anywhere close to the maximal energy that humankind can harvest?

I'd say you have seen nothing yet. And history is on my side here.

Besides, creating smarter things doesn't necessarily need more energy. We are pretty wasteful with energy at the moment. What you are talking about, entropy in the sense of progressing anywhere, is a ridiculously small fraction of what we are currently using energy for. Most of it goes to waste. There are generations of better energy efficiency to come before energy availability that can't be compensated with higher efficiency even becomes an issue. By then, nuclear fusion will be paramount and/or our use of the energy that comes from the sun will be magnitudes improved from what we do today. Just look back 100 years.

If we haven't bombed ourselves back into the stone age before that. Quite a possible outcome too.

[kilgnad]

> And you are saying we are anywhere close to the maximal energy that humankind can harvest?

Nope. But any exponential growth in consumption of energy will hit the existing limit very quickly. Even if that limit was magically increased by 10x we'd still hit it very very quickly.

> higher efficiency even becomes an issue. By then, nuclear fusion will be paramount and/or our use of the energy that comes from the sun will be magnitudes improved from what we do today. Just look back 100 years

Technological gambles are speculative. The failure of fusion is unfortunately just as realistic of a possibility that must be considered in a logical analysis.

[yuhaa98]

Again.

1. "Progress" does not need to imply "exponential growth in consumption of energy".

2. Even if it does, we may be many thousand generations away from hitting a ceiling.

[kilgnad]

>1. "Progress" does not need to imply "exponential growth in consumption of energy".

It doesn't need to imply it. But from historical evidence it DOES imply it.

>2. Even if it does, we may be many thousand generations away from hitting a ceiling.

Not necessarily true. We don't fully know that. We're hitting ceilings with oil already. In the US peak oil already happened and we shifted to shale. We have about 5 more years of that. We're not sure what's left of middle eastern sources.

Other sources aren't ready yet, they're up and coming but we can't fully be sure technology will play out the way we want it to play out.