Comments on: Thesis #15: We have passed the point of diminishing returns.

By: Sherrian

Sherrian — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:25:50 +0000

need to see a diminishing return curve when there is a negative number

By: The Anthropik Network » Thesis #27: Collapse increases quality of life.

The Anthropik Network » Thesis #27: Collapse increases quality of life. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:56:29 +0000

[…] and we are past the point of diminishing returns for our investments in further complexity (see thesis #15). Collapse is now inevitable (see thesis #26)–it is already underway. Collapse is an […]

By: The Anthropik Network » Thesis #26: Collapse is inevitable.

The Anthropik Network » Thesis #26: Collapse is inevitable. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:56:02 +0000

[…] to expect of them. As we have seen, we have already passed the point of diminishing returns (see thesis #15), leaving us open to the possibility of collapse. Peak Oil (see thesis #18) and environmental […]

By: The Anthropik Network » Thesis #25: Civilization reduces quality of life.

The Anthropik Network » Thesis #25: Civilization reduces quality of life. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:55:43 +0000

[…] due to the diminishing marginal returns of medical research (a point addressed explicitly in thesis #15)–we have managed to raise our life expectancy to that of the most meager and marginalized […]

By: The Slow Crash (The Anthropik Network)

The Slow Crash (The Anthropik Network) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:22:03 +0000

[…] In thesis #15, arguing that our civilization has already passed the point of diminishing returns for social complexity, common dates continue to emerge, hovering about the turn of the last century, for peaks of various aspects of social complexity, as one would expect, given that complexity rises or falls as a more-or-less unified phenomenon, and as a function of energy. That the dates hover about the turn of the last century, though, suggest a somewhat startling conclusion: that the twentieth century was actually the first 100 years of collapse. […]

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:44:51 +0000

China’s on the brink of collapse as it is. Their complexity is propped up by our own; without 300 million rich Americans to sell cheap crap to, China has nothing.

By: Konstantin

Konstantin — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:26:35 +0000

okay so I did read some of the comments and it seems we are discussing the aftermath and I just want to say, remember the end of the Roman Empire and what effect it had on its underdevelopped provinces? I dont think the Visigoths, for instance were too affected, or the Franks or the Egyptians, or any o’those folks. They just all kind of went back to their own standards. It wasnt that catastrophic, s what I’m trying to say. Global economy my ass. If US files for bancruptcy tomorrow, Romania and Tibet are not gonna explode into space. The Chinese would have a joygasm.

By: Konstantin

Konstantin — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:00:26 +0000

Theres too many comments and I’m not reading them all. In fact, theres so many that I’m not reading ANY of’em, howszat for diminishing returns? Anyways, I think youre a smart dude and I agree with your views. F-ing rotten culture… By the way, somehow I feel that the primary function of top-heavy civilizations is to be evolutionary choke-points. can you feel it?

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:51:49 +0000

Are you sure you read the article, Terry? Because your comments were already refuted there. I’ll merely reiterate here more directly.

Every time a breakthrough technology comes out, the point of diminishing return moves further into the future, and with technology always increasing, that point of dimishing return is still far away.

Neither point is true, because invention itself is subject to diminishing returns. In fact, as I argue in this thesis, we have already passed the point of diminishing returns. Each new invention is merely an increase in our complexity, and thus brings us closer to the point of diminishing returns (or now, further past it). Because of the irrational faith in technological invention, I singled that facet of complexity out for individual consideration in the next thesis, thesis #16.

These cost figures are about the money that goes to the schools and not to the students themselves.

That’s actually very illustrative of the point here. This no mere unnecessary overhead; this is the bureaucratic complexity that has developed as our society, and our educational systems, have become more complex. That is the cost of complexity; that is complexity beyond the point of diminishing returns.

The amount of money that the student makes after graduation is usually more than what was put in.

Well yes, that’s why people still do it. But the cost is still rising faster than the return, so the marginal return is decreasing. Understand?

To say that higher education is past the point of dimishing return is ignorant and unresponsible.

Frankly, your argument otherwise betrays a certain lack of understanding for what diminishing marginal returns means. Both in research and education, universities are spending more and more for the same results. That’s the very definiton of diminishing marginal returns. It doesn’t mean it’s a losing proposition yet; it means that it’s trending towards that, and will one day reach that point. The point of diminishing returns is when you start trending towards a losing proposition, but any system will be abandoned well before it actually reaches the point of becoming a losing proposition. You’ll never see the day when an education costs more than you’ll ever be able to pay back, for instance, because people will stop pursuing an education before that happens.

By: terry medeiros

terry medeiros — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:38:50 +0000

I have not read other people’s comments. I have only read the thesis article. The two arguments I would like to make starts with technology and ends with education. Every time a breakthrough technology comes out, the point of diminishing return moves further into the future, and with technology always increasing, that point of dimishing return is still far away. And who knows when the next breakthrough occurs to push it that much further away. The second point I want to make is more money may go into specialized education. These cost figures are about the money that goes to the schools and not to the students themselves. Elementary and middle school definately does not cost as much as high school and college. High school cost the most per student because most of the money still goes toward the students education, but things change when you reach college. most of the money that goes to colleges end up in some type of research. The students may be doing the research but the actual education, most of the time, is paid out by the student through tuition and fees. Some students may receive scholarships but most pay through loans, credit cards and cash. The amount of money that the student makes after graduation is usually more than what was put in. And without the funding for research at colleges a lot of technologies would not exist. Colleges in the early 1900’s focused more on education, but now college’s and universities serve a dual purpose. To say that higher education is past the point of dimishing return is ignorant and unresponsible.