Spanish soccer pro quits sports in criticism of capitalism

[Barrister]

And there's no reason to think that the continuing increase in productivity will stop all of a sudden.

There is no reason to assume that it will just continue chugging along either.  Just because humanity broke through the constraint that limited it for millenia doesn't mean that we won't eventually reach a new constraint (and not in a hundred generations' time, but considerably sooner).

No constraint that limited us for millenia.  There's been a slow but steady improvement since the dawn of history.

[Ed Anger]

This thread is no longer fun.

[Barrister]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

Now you're just creating a strawman.  Who says it's going to suddenly stop?  In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops.  It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.

You're the one atatcking a straw man.  How is to say it would start to gradually peter out tomorrow?

[Razgovory]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

Now you're just creating a strawman.  Who says it's going to suddenly stop?  In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops.  It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.

It's not even a true statement.  Technology has not improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  It's jumped radically in the last 500 years.  Before that, it sometimes declined or simply stopped.  In some places like Australia technology has not improved at all over thousands of years.  before Europeans showed up, the Australians still hadn't figured out the bow and arrow.  Their technology was pretty much the same as it was when their ancestors showed up 40,000 years ago.

[Barrister]

Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history.  There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.

Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy?  Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history).  The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology.  Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution.  An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword.  An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC.  Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier.  Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.

Notice how carefully you needed to cherry pick your examples though.

Yes, an Italian would notice a difference between the height of the Roman Empire, and it's immediate fall.

But even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.

You're focusing too much on the big picture.  There are any number of inventions and developments that have improved human productivity, and thus 'per capita GDP'.  Even agriculture wasn't one sudden development - no various crops were slowly developed, then refined.  cropgrowing techniques were improved.  Irrigation was invented, and improved.

They moved from bronze, to iron.  They refined how swords, how ploughs, were made.  Horses were domesticated, then saddles, then stirrups.

Improvements in literacy assisted the spread of ideas and the storing of knowledge.

Really guys - this can not be surprising information to you.

[Barrister]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

Now you're just creating a strawman.  Who says it's going to suddenly stop?  In logistic growth models, nothing suddenly stops.  It's just that growth gradually peters out as you get closer and closer to constraint.

It's not even a true statement.  Technology has not improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  It's jumped radically in the last 500 years.  Before that, it sometimes declined or simply stopped.  In some places like Australia technology has not improved at all over thousands of years.  before Europeans showed up, the Australians still hadn't figured out the bow and arrow.  Their technology was pretty much the same as it was when their ancestors showed up 40,000 years ago.

You're looking at it through a very European point of view.

The aborigines may not have invented the bow and arrow, but they absolutely imrpved their skills and tools to deal with the situation in Australia.  Aborigine history is far from mystrong suit, but they either invented the boomerang, or refined it to its highest and most developed point on all the earth.

[alfred russel]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

I think that this is wrong. I'd be suprised anyone would argue it has improved at a consistent rate, and it is debatable whether it has even consistently improved (there is evidence of some periods of decline).

Per capita production exponentially increasing through technological improvements is a product of the industrial revolution. There may not be many reasons to think that will stop in the near term, but especially if we stay on this planet, there are obvious limits. That isn't to say that we aren't going to hit the limits in our lifetimes, but there are definitely reasons to think it will be hit in far less than hundreds of generations.

[Iormlund]

I'd be careful with the $100 per barrel example BB. You're forgetting most of mankind is poorer than the poorest Languishite.

A full third of mankind is fed by fertilizers made with a century-old process that uses copious amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen is however very expensive to isolate so we extract it from natural gas. This is just one way in which a surge in fossil fuel prices means billions might go hungry. And when hunger strikes, as shown this year, even governments are toppled.

[Razgovory]

No, I'm pretty sure an English peasant lived pretty much the same way over those 400 years.  His tools and methods were largely unchanged.  He still had wooden and sometimes Iron tools, he was still illiterate, and still faced regular warfare where assholes would ride ever his fields and burn his home down.  I'm focusing on the big picture because it's a big picture issue.  And it's not a steady growth thing.  Wealth rose and fell based on lots of factors.  Sometimes technologies were simply lost, and whole civilizations collapsed.  Sometimes they never really came back.

[alfred russel]

Economic growth has slowly and fairly consistently increased over all of human history.  There have been periods (even lengthy periods) where it has declined, and regions where it has declined even dramatically, but taken over all of human history it's been a fairly steady increase over the last 4-5000 years or so.

Really? Were people wealthier in 7th century Italy then they were in say 1st century Italy?  Economic growth has been fairly flat covering a period from say the widespread acceptance of agriculture to the Industrial Revolution (which incidentally covers most of human history).  The two biggest increases in economic growth have been the paradigm shifts in technology.  Notably the invention of Agriculture and the Industrial Revolution.  An English Peasant in 10th century England was probably not much better off then his ancestors two centuries before or his decedents two centuries afterword.  An Egyptian peasant in 2,000 BC probably lived pretty similar to an Egyptian peasant at 1,000 BC.  Going back further, a hunter gatherer living in around 20,000 BC was not really wealthier then his ancestors living 10,000 years earlier.  Outside these two major paradigm shifts the average wealth would go up and down but in the long run be fairly steady.

Notice how carefully you needed to cherry pick your examples though.

Yes, an Italian would notice a difference between the height of the Roman Empire, and it's immediate fall.

But even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.

You're focusing too much on the big picture.  There are any number of inventions and developments that have improved human productivity, and thus 'per capita GDP'.  Even agriculture wasn't one sudden development - no various crops were slowly developed, then refined.  cropgrowing techniques were improved.  Irrigation was invented, and improved.

They moved from bronze, to iron.  They refined how swords, how ploughs, were made.  Horses were domesticated, then saddles, then stirrups.

Improvements in literacy assisted the spread of ideas and the storing of knowledge.

Really guys - this can not be surprising information to you.

Yeah, major discoveries were not forgotten, or at least forgotten in ways that were still easily rediscovered.

That doesn't change the fact that a 1st or 2nd century roman probably had a better diet and quality of living than anyone coming later by more than a millenium. To stay with the Roman example, there is evidence that ancient Romans were taller than anyone preceding the modern age, and the size of domesticated animals steadily decreased as the Roman empire eroded (bottoming out in the dark ages).

In places like Babylon in the 2nd millenium BC there was a literary culture preserved as much regarding the private thoughts of some of the leading citizens as european societies from 1100 years ago. Literacy was definitely not a steady march toward univerality.

[Barrister]

The fact is that technology has changed and improved at a consistent rate over the last 5,000 years.  Why would it suddenly stop tomorrow?

I think that this is wrong. I'd be suprised anyone would argue it has improved at a consistent rate, and it is debatable whether it has even consistently improved (there is evidence of some periods of decline).

Per capita production exponentially increasing through technological improvements is a product of the industrial revolution. There may not be many reasons to think that will stop in the near term, but especially if we stay on this planet, there are obvious limits. That isn't to say that we aren't going to hit the limits in our lifetimes, but there are definitely reasons to think it will be hit in far less than hundreds of generations.

'consistently' would be a better choice of words than 'consistent'.

If you took a chart of estimated per capita GDP from 4000BC to today you'd see a squiggly line that has plenty of noise year to year, but that generally has an overall steady increase over time (and a more rapid increase the last few hundred years).

Raz - read into it - I'm positive you'll find that little by little living conditions improved throughout the middle agres in Britain.

Iorm, I present to you an article from today's G&M entitled "Are High Oil Prices That Bad Really?":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/are-high-oil-prices-that-bad-really/article2127627/

[Razgovory]

You're looking at it through a very European point of view.

The aborigines may not have invented the bow and arrow, but they absolutely imrpved their skills and tools to deal with the situation in Australia.  Aborigine history is far from mystrong suit, but they either invented the boomerang, or refined it to its highest and most developed point on all the earth.

They had this technology for thousands of years.  There was no appreciable growth in either technology or living standards.  Throwing sticks are not Unique to Australia.  They are well known in Africa.  Ancient Egyptians had them.  I doubt Aborigines in 5,000 years ago were any more "Skilled" then ones that lived 7000 years ago.  I'm actually looking at it through a non-Euro-centric way. While technology rapidly increased over the last 500 years in Europe, it did not in many other parts of the world.  To assume that this is norm rather then the exception seems silly to me since it does not reflect what is known about human beings.  Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years.  The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.

[Ideologue]

But even your English example - the 8th century 'englishman' would be subject to Saxon / viking raids, the 10th century to the norman conquest, but they're have noticeably better quality of life by the 12th century.

I actually generally agree with you, although I'm not sure a decrease in Britain's crime rate between 800 and 1200 is the best indicator of technological progress.

[Barrister]

They had this technology for thousands of years.  There was no appreciable growth in either technology or living standards.  Throwing sticks are not Unique to Australia.  They are well known in Africa.  Ancient Egyptians had them.  I doubt Aborigines in 5,000 years ago were any more "Skilled" then ones that lived 7000 years ago.  I'm actually looking at it through a non-Euro-centric way. While technology rapidly increased over the last 500 years in Europe, it did not in many other parts of the world.  To assume that this is norm rather then the exception seems silly to me since it does not reflect what is known about human beings.  Human beings have existed with behavior modernity for about 100,000-50,000 thousand years.  The great bulk of this time period saw static economic and technological growth.

You're wrong.  But I can not spend the time to find the proof that you're wrong this afternoon - it's a sunny Friday afternoon.

[Razgovory]

Theoretically technological innovation has to stop sometime.  I mean, it's based on a better understanding of natural laws and exploitation of those laws.  Eventually you are going to run out of natural laws to discover.  Presumably, one day all phenomenon in physics will be finally understood.  There has to be finite number of physical laws.  I suppose it's also possible some are not understandable by human minds, but that leaves us with the same result.