Just like the author chose to ignore inflation, they chose to dismiss deflation (money being worth more) as simply "development".
And I don't see the economist ever mentioning exponential growth: linear growth is still growth, though for a small enough rate (significantly below 1%), there is probably little to tell them apart for human timescales (100s or 1000s of years).
I do find the thermodynamics argument interesting, though it is predicated on sustained exponential growth.
I mean, I doubt the accuracy of estimates starting with 1650 (it's also production rate when production was more wasteful which should matter when looking at thermodynamics), but even regardless of that, the graph clearly flattens up: energy usage is moving to linear growth since 1980s yet population of US is still rising.
Not a physicist nor an economist myself, but the physicist seems to be giving themselves too much credit here.
Just like the author chose to ignore inflation, they chose to dismiss deflation (money being worth more) as simply "development".
And I don't see the economist ever mentioning exponential growth: linear growth is still growth, though for a small enough rate (significantly below 1%), there is probably little to tell them apart for human timescales (100s or 1000s of years).
I do find the thermodynamics argument interesting, though it is predicated on sustained exponential growth.
I mean, I doubt the accuracy of estimates starting with 1650 (it's also production rate when production was more wasteful which should matter when looking at thermodynamics), but even regardless of that, the graph clearly flattens up: energy usage is moving to linear growth since 1980s yet population of US is still rising.
Not a physicist nor an economist myself, but the physicist seems to be giving themselves too much credit here.