Ask HN: Theory That Economic Growth Stagnates in a Civilization | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Theory That Economic Growth Stagnates in a Civilization

I have had a theory for a while that economic growth or the economy in terms of CAGR will go to 0% or becomes linear with population as the population grows. This in my mind aligns with the opportunities for lifestyle improvements going to 0 (we already have the internet, we already have food, shelter etc.) so this is no new market to cover/no new businesses to invent?

Has this topic been discussed or debated anywhere? Has anyone with this same theory done any mathematical projections?

View on HN

You may wish to do some cursory searches with an llm like DeepSeek or Grok. You'll find a few, but the most approachable introduction to the topic I'm aware of is Tainter.

I'm no economist, I've only taken Econ 101 and 102, where the professor accused me of hacking the stock market simulation, when actually I just I conspired with a fellow student to corner the market, and we ended up with all the virtual money. ;-)

Back in the days of commodities based currency, the demand for silver or gold limited what could be achieved in the economy. After a flood of silver stolen from the "New World" arrived in Europe, it caused inflation. Similar situations happen throughout history.

I think the primary driver of economic growth is the distribution of opportunity throughout society. If a rentier class happens to capture governance, as is the case in Russia with the oligarchs, or in the US with our "Tech Bros" and hedge funds, social mobility, and the drive to improve one's station in life, is greatly diminished, and the economy becomes a zero sum game.

I'm very open to being wrong though.

No doubt about the zero sum game in terms of a possible path in terms of wealth distribution. My question is what will be the function of the "sum part" as a society builds all technologies to 'completion' which is defined as when the utility of any new technology approaches zero because there is nothing 'valuable' or 'new to invent'.

A different argument is that as technology improves to infinity, wealth also becomes ubiquitous and potentially infinite. So even though no new technology is invented that is valuable, there is infinite wealth through abundance.

It seems to me that the primary driver of which world we end up in is whether humanity is able to become multi-planetary. Otherwise, resources become a constraint and instead of discovering new existing resources, humanity can only create value by inventing new technology.

These are not strong opinions.

Gene Roddenberry‘s Star Trek universe was a humanist post-scarcity society. There were a number of thinkers that informed that vision.

I think you are thinking in a meaningful way deserving of exploration. Our society as organized today isn’t ordained or divine. There are many cracks in the armor, and it’s likely that things will evolve in one way or another.

It’s hard to talk about because people cling strongly to what they want to believe and have trouble thinking about what could be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com