[halfdan]

I obviously have nothing to back this up with, but my instinct is that it’s the over exploitation that makes it such a powerful economy. But just like Saudi Arabia’s oil it will eventually stop being a sustainable source for the economy. Alaskan fisheries collapsing, rivers that support water hungry crops in the desert running dry might be first indicators of many that things are collapsing.

[MSFT_Edging]

Huh, its almost like infinite growth is impossible in our context of the natural world.

Who would have thought spreadsheets and magic market numbers had little material connection to the resources extracted to extrapolate those numbers.

[kiba]

Eh, only within the current context of society and technology.

For example, most of the energy from the sun that hit our planet are just basically wasted. Meanwhile, the sun uselessly radiate away energy that's not even hitting the planet.

The reason why fisheries are collapsing is because we don't spend much making our environment more habitable and pollute or use up what's already there.

[tablespoon]

>> Huh, its almost like infinite growth is impossible in our context of the natural world.

> Eh, only within the current context of society and technology.

> For example, most of the energy from the sun that hit our planet are just basically wasted. Meanwhile, the sun uselessly radiate away energy that's not even hitting the planet.

You can't magick away the problem with sci-fi fantasies. Those technologies don't actually exist and (with a fairly high probability) may never exist.

And in any case, a bigger finite does not an infinite make.

[kiba]

We already have the technology. Just not the economy to take advantage of it. Solar panels, satellites and factories are nothing new to us.

[tablespoon]

> We already have the technology. Just not the economy to take advantage of it. Solar panels, satellites and factories are nothing new to us.

We don't have the technology to pave the planet in solar panels, because we don't have the technology to make it cost effective. Also the solution to the "problem" of "most of the energy from the sun that hit our planet are just basically wasted" is to literally destroy the environment in an industrialization project.

Solving the "problem" of "...the sun uselessly radiate away energy that's not even hitting the planet," is also limited by that cost effectiveness problem AND the problem of we don't have the technology to do anything with energy collected by satellites, especially ones half-way around the solar system. Then there's the issue of putting up a few trillion solar power satellites still would allow the sun to "uselessly radiate away energy that's not even hitting the planet."

[myshpa]

> We don't have the technology to pave the planet in solar panels,

We'd need only 254x254 km of solar panels for the whole world.

https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst... - page 25

[gretch]

Well yeah, obviously _infinite_ growth is not possible given the laws of physics.

But the whole premise of technology is that you can break the zero-sum and reach arbitrarily high levels.

For example Deuterium–tritium fusion runs on hydrogen that's pretty common to find. Yes, if we learn to exploit it, we will one day run out, but by then we'll have new sources of fuel. Similarly solar energy is just 'free' energy that rains down on our planet.

We could use that energy to farm fish or cultivate natural populations. We don't do that which is bad, but it's not some impossibility.

[secstate]

While you're not technically wrong, the idea of net-zero sources of energy does not address what happens when you start concentrating "free energy" in new places. Fish farms are ecologically monstrosities in most places they exist. Electricity is only one input, fresh water is another, and we haven't figured out where to get that much fresh water for free yet.

In many ways these arguments of "there's free energy from hydrogen fusion" feels similar to arguments about solving invasive species with another species because we haven't figured out that the new species will be invasive yet. And in a similar fashion, the local ecology may eventually re-balance (indeed, likely will) but what time scale are we looking at? Humans need human time scales.

[greedo]

Almost all our agriculture AND aquaculture are ecological monstrosities because we don't make the producers pay for externalities.

[frozenport]

The value of some large tech companies is orders of magnitude above the entire Alaska fishery.

The US’s wealth is in it’s people not it’s fisheries.

[Jensson]

I think they meant the political climate in USA where corporate profits is the top of every political agenda, that helps all companies and not just Alaskan fisheries. If the government listened more to workers then USA probably wouldn't be as dominant as it is.

[mgraczyk]

On the other hand, the servers at restaurants in SF make more than most software engineers in Western Europe now. So probably good to focus a little more on economic growth.

[actionfromafar]

I don't think so necessarily, the US is still a huge, solid market market. If anything, I think it could be even richer and more powerful if more its populace were lifted from poverty.

[red-iron-pine]

Aye, about 2.5% of it's people