[intalentive]

Claims that ring true:

* Energy physics puts an upper bound on material wealth

* The disparity between notional and material wealth is large and growing

* Notional wealth figures are largely speculative / fictitious

Claims that could be true (if empirically verified):

* Material wealth is decreasing

* Energy is decreasing

* The monetary system will collapse

Claims that have been implied but not demonstrated or argued:

* There is a causal link between decreasing energy supplies and monetary system collapse

Overall it smells like 2004-era peak oil doomerism. I’m not saying it’s wrong, it could just be early. Intrigued but not convinced.

[bryanlarsen]

> * Energy physics puts an upper bound on material wealth

Sure, but that's such a high upper bound that it may as well be false from our perspective in 2025. We use a miniscule fraction of the energy we receive from the sun.

[generativenoise]

We directly use a miniscule fraction, indirect use is quite a bit higher since that is used delivering ecosystem services we depend on.

Then there is the question of how much of that potential we want to turn into waste heat inside the atmosphere, which is more governed by how much radiative cooling we have rather than how much energy is incident or available on the earth.

I think that humanity would be limited by pollution and ecosystem destruction before energy for most human scale material wealth. The bit where it becomes tricky is energy does change what how easily and fast you can do things, which may place enough of a real world limit.

[bryanlarsen]

It's still a tiny fraction. Plants are surprisingly inefficient users of sunshine. And our use of plants is less surprisingly inefficient.

Of course more efficient usage isn't necessarily a good thing.

[generativenoise]

It would seem you are still just thinking about the human controlled portions of the ecosystem and not including all the energy used to drive to water cycle etc.