Of course it hasn't played out yet, it's in the future. No one said the world was ending in 2010 and if they did it doesn't make others wrong. Your definition of doomerism is a very convenient strawman, it means "whenever someone in the past was pessimistic".

>Or did you think every time nvidia announces their quarterly results and the market puts a valuation on nvidia that we are allocating materials to nvidia?

Do I look like I care about the US pretend economy and stupid shit like the Nvidia stock bubble? Of course that's not closely pegged to material or energy use. I'm talking about larger trends, where you can see a clear correlation of GDP with energy use, material use, etc: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-person-vs-...

>The worst part? You keep telling everybody around you to place a bet on your model with their life savings despite never being able to produce an example where your model was right

Researchers built a world simulation model in the 70s. It was revisited recently and the resource use curves track closely to reality:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...

I guess I'll just stop responding because you're clearly not interested in the scientific consensus or having an imagination beyond human exceptionalism.

Of course it hasn't. The real problem is that the atmosphere is being poisoned beyond repair, at an increasing pace, and that is tied to economic growth. That will eventually un-terraform the planet into a place hostile to agriculture, be it in 50 or 100 years. We're nowhere near being able to reverse this in any way, and there are no signs of it slowing down.

Are actuaries stupid doomers whose worldviews make them unable to function in society? You decide: https://actuaries.org.uk/media/ni4erlna/planetary-solvency.p...

>Good thing we are not confined to a closed system in any practical sense.You act like we haven't already used space for economic growth.

Oh, am I to believe space mining fantasies maybe? I'm sure we'll get there, just after AGI solves nuclear fusion for us in the next 5 years. Then we can have star trek replicators to go with them. I just wish it would happen sooner, that sea floor mining stuff is starting to gain traction and it isn't looking pretty.

>It's also a good thing that the concept of "growth" in this context is not limited by physical constraints

It actually is. The concept of "decoupling" of the economy from material resources has been debunked for a while now. Theoretically there can be efficiency gains that generate further growth, but those are usually quickly cannibalized by increasing demand, plus we're deep on the diminishing returns phase in a lot of fields.

I recommend this resource: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunk...

Oh, the classic "if you're so smart then why aren't you rich" non argument. I'm sure Carl Sagan was a just whiny loser because he didn't figure out how to become a billionaire from knowing how physics works. His prediction that the planet would warm several degrees by the mid to late 21st century failed to reward him what he was owed. By the way we haven't even gotten halfway there yet, so your "shifting goalposts" thesis is null.

People who push dangerous neoliberal propaganda like carbon capture or "infinite growth on a finite planet is possible" on the other hand do get very rich, and they don't even need to make good predictions. Such is the planet governed by pedophiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI

We're on a hothouse earth trajectory. All signs point to you not being aware of serious climate research and hanging on to a naive Steven Pinker "everything is always improving" outlook.

Having tight control over the context and only giving it small tasks makes all the difference. The deepseek token costs are unbeatable too.