Does Progress Hamper The Economy Or Is It The Other Way Around?

[Phi for All]

There are thousands of examples where innovation has been suppressed, or durability has been compromised, to maintain profitable business. We've used the highly inefficient incandescent light bulb for over one hundred years (90% of its energy goes to heat instead of light). The 1908 Ford Model T got 25 mpg and a hundred years later the average gas mileage is worse: 21 mpg. Plastics and other materials have been reduced in strength in order to decrease product lifetime and increase repeat purchases. Planned obsolescence limits the product lifetime where weakening the structure is impractical. Often politics is used to insure that inefficient methodology is adopted, like using corn to produce ethanol as a fuel additive. Patents are purchased so the technology can be suppressed, like Chevron's purchase of NiMH battery technology from General Motors (they promptly mired the patents in multiple corporate purchases and lawsuits, insuring that no one dares to go anywhere near making an electric car with it again).

 

A goal of some businesses is to research, develop and manufacture a product/service that consumers want. Once you've done that, you work to recoup your expenses and minimize your costs. Once established, the last thing you want to do is change anything so you incur more costs that have to be recouped. Other than for growth (manufacturing more of the same product), innovation seems to be anathema to this kind of business model.

 

On one hand, efficient design and use of resources wars with free market profits and consumer choice. On the other hand, with today's fast-paced technology, it's often difficult to bring a product through R&D and manufacturing and thus to market when competitors can easily build on the work you've done and trump you in the marketplace. And how much effort can you put into a great new piece of computer hardware knowing that it will most likely be archaic in a couple of years?

 

Untold amounts of money have been spent on advertising designed to make us discontented with what we have in an effort to get us to make purchases sooner than necessary. Psychological obsolescence is pervasive, and while it can be argued that we are free to make our choices, how can we possibly not fall prey to such massive efforts to manipulate our minds?

 

I've seen well-used products made from plastic in the 1950s that are still functional today and look like the day they came off the assembly line; not even any scratches on them, still bright and colorful. These items weren't terribly expensive to purchase in their day, and it seems like over time plastic items have gotten dramatically weaker without being dramatically cheaper. Would our economy have been broken if many products rarely had to be replaced or would we have come up with other things to use our resources for?

 

What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the premise. The average fuel efficiency of modern cars is 21mpg not because of a lack of innovation in engine design, but because of consumer demands for large cars and environmental regulations on engine emissions. (There's a tradeoff between efficiency and emissions; many emissions-reducing devices harm fuel economy, and some measures to improve engine performance and economy hurt emissions.)

 

My dad, who designs engines for a living, likes to give the example of the maintenance manual for a 1950s German car: the 30,000-mile maintenance instructions began with "Remove body from chassis" and proceeded through an almost entire rebuild of the vehicle. Now you can buy a $20,000 Camry and expect it to run 120,000 miles with only minor maintenance and some strategic duct tape.

 

Perhaps it would be more fair to compare modern products with older products which have similar regulatory and consumer requirements. Cars certainly have more safety and emission requirements now than they did at the time of the Model T. For example, one might say that disposable razors these days are flimsy and less effective than their fifty-year-old counterparts (despite having five times as many blades). (I don't know if this is actually true, not having shaved fifty years ago.) If that's the case, there are multiple possible explanations: perhaps consumer demand for cheaper products forced companies to skimp on materials, or the growth of electric razors required a different market position. One doesn't have to put the blame on greedy companies -- perhaps consumers and competition forced their hand.

[swansont]

I was going to make some of the same points as Cap'n; safety requirements of cars, as well as demands for other types of vehicles. Average gas mileage includes things like pickup trucks and SUVs. Cars today are more comfortable and include many mileage-reducing extras like a radio/CD player and air conditioning. Also, the top speed of the model T was 40-45 mph (and Ford says it got 13-21 mpg, not 25) http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=858 The ability to go 65 mph or faster, in comfort, compromises efficiency.

 

Computer hardware becomes obsolete precisely because of innovation, not because innovation is being suppressed. Processors get faster and memory gains capacity. Computer technology is deflationary — middle-of-the-road computers have been of order $500-1000 for quite a while now, yet the processing power of a computer today is leaps and bounds beyond what you could get a decade ago, let alone two.

 

I don't doubt that planned obsolescence exists. But I also think that there is enough competition out there that you are not forced into that corner for a multitude of products, and that the suppressors of innovation are taking a very short view. Some of the exceptions you list are a result of political pressure, and yes, people do fall prey to advertising. But if they choose fashion over function, it's still their choice and the force of the market, not some suppression of innovation. I think that you can find home appliances that still last for a decade or more and offer more features while being more energy efficient.

 

Also, to be pedantic, 100% of a traditional incandescent light-bulb's output goes to heat. It's just that a few percent is in the visible, so we have found these heaters to be useful. Better technology exists, but the resistance to adopting it seems to be a combination of deficient math skills and simple contrariness.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the premise. The average fuel efficiency of modern cars is 21mpg not because of a lack of innovation in engine design, but because of consumer demands for large cars and environmental regulations on engine emissions. (There's a tradeoff between efficiency and emissions; many emissions-reducing devices harm fuel economy, and some measures to improve engine performance and economy hurt emissions.)

Seriously though, after 100 years, ways to improve fuel efficiency and emissions together haven't progressed proportionately? I realize I'm arguing from incredulity here, but why wouldn't that happen? More efficient burning of fuels would seem to lead to both added economy and less emissions.

 

My dad, who designs engines for a living, likes to give the example of the maintenance manual for a 1950s German car: the 30,000-mile maintenance instructions began with "Remove body from chassis" and proceeded through an almost entire rebuild of the vehicle. Now you can buy a $20,000 Camry and expect it to run 120,000 miles with only minor maintenance and some strategic duct tape.

There's no doubt that the overall integrity of the vehicles have progressed immensely in the last 100 years. I think that's what makes the lack of progress in fuel efficiency stand out all the more.

 

Perhaps it would be more fair to compare modern products with older products which have similar regulatory and consumer requirements. Cars certainly have more safety and emission requirements now than they did at the time of the Model T. For example, one might say that disposable razors these days are flimsy and less effective than their fifty-year-old counterparts (despite having five times as many blades). (I don't know if this is actually true, not having shaved fifty years ago.) If that's the case, there are multiple possible explanations: perhaps consumer demand for cheaper products forced companies to skimp on materials, or the growth of electric razors required a different market position. One doesn't have to put the blame on greedy companies -- perhaps consumers and competition forced their hand.

There's another question for you: is it consumer demand for cheaper products, or is it manufacturer ability to make a product that costs half to make but sells for only one-third less? The factory outlet model suggests that you can manufacture to a certain price point while gaining more profit by marketing to people who think they re getting huge discounts.

 

And I didn't say the companies were greedy. The model demands that as companies grow, they take on investors who need to see a return, and any time a company changes hands there needs to be more money that comes from somewhere to bridge the gaps. When a company goes public, stockholders need to see dividends and that money has to come from a variety of different strategies. But that's just business.

 

What I'm trying to get at is where do you draw the line? Consumers should be responsible for demanding something better than a light bulb that heats the house more efficiently than it lights it. We should be smart enough to realize that something that lasts ten times longer is well worth three times the price. But what can we do when corporations have the political and media power to keep us in the dark about technology that might mean more efficiency at less cost to us?

 

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 lets Congress and the military, through the Patent and Trademark Office, decide that an invention is against the interests of national security. The law is so broad and powerful that it can effectively require that no mention is ever made of the request for patent, not just the parts that are deemed dangerous. It's been claimed that this law has been used to suppress inventions that would increase fuel economy in internal combustion engines (and the law is applicable since the military uses IC engines), but those claims can't be verified for the above mentioned reasons. Apparently, a current list of technology areas used to screen patent applications for restriction isn't publicly available, even under the Freedom of Information Act. It could even be argued that any invention which would adversely affect existing markets and thus upset the economy could be construed as against the interests of national security.

 

As we see corporate personhood gain more prominence in political affairs, and knowing that the US has made use of the military to further business interests in the oil industry, as well as having evidence that competing technology has been purchased and suppressed to support current profit centers, is it farfetched to think we are a bit bogged down with "business as usual" in favor of more efficient uses for our resources?

[jeskill]

Also, to be pedantic, 100% of a traditional incandescent light-bulb's output goes to heat. It's just that a few percent is in the visible, so we have found these heaters to be useful. Better technology exists, but the resistance to adopting it seems to be a combination of deficient math skills and simple contrariness.

 

Wired had an interesting take on the reason humans prefer incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent:

Evolutionary biologists believe that human lighting preferences are the result of our trichromatic vision—rare in nonprimates—which makes us particularly suited to daylight and the perception of primary colors. There's an anthropological component as well: For 400,000 years, humankind has been banishing darkness with fire. And Edison's bulb is, at its core, a burning filament that casts the glow of a flame. Abandoning incandescent bulbs means abandoning fire as our primary light source for the first time in human history.

 

 

What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

Is the concept "progression" a synonym for "cultural evolution"? If so, one would think that progress only occurs when it's advantageous. In our culture, that generally means that there needs to be some sort of monetary/economic advantage for progression. That would lead to the conclusion that in our current culture, economic maintenance is king.

 

It seems to me that the concept of progression leading to an efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation is actually an ethical or value concept. Therefore, it would only be important if it were a value held by the majority of people, or if it was a value laid out in a constitution and thus had to be obeyed.

Edited September 10, 2011 by jeskill

[Phi for All]

I was going to make some of the same points as Cap'n; safety requirements of cars, as well as demands for other types of vehicles. Average gas mileage includes things like pickup trucks and SUVs. Cars today are more comfortable and include many mileage-reducing extras like a radio/CD player and air conditioning. Also, the top speed of the model T was 40-45 mph (and Ford says it got 13-21 mpg, not 25) http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=858 The ability to go 65 mph or faster, in comfort, compromises efficiency.

Well, as I said, my only arguments are ones that are tough to back up. The relationship between auto makers and oil producers seems like a no-brainer on the surface, but the auto makers want cheaper fuel so people use their cars more, and the oil producers know they are working with a diminishing supply, so high prices (but not too high) are their best friend.

 

Computer hardware becomes obsolete precisely because of innovation, not because innovation is being suppressed. Processors get faster and memory gains capacity. Computer technology is deflationary — middle-of-the-road computers have been of order $500-1000 for quite a while now, yet the processing power of a computer today is leaps and bounds beyond what you could get a decade ago, let alone two.

I acknowledged this in the opener. And when you add in the fact that intellectual property is ignored by some countries, it makes it even tougher to use standard business models to be successful in electronics technology.

 

I don't doubt that planned obsolescence exists. But I also think that there is enough competition out there that you are not forced into that corner for a multitude of products, and that the suppressors of innovation are taking a very short view. Some of the exceptions you list are a result of political pressure, and yes, people do fall prey to advertising. But if they choose fashion over function, it's still their choice and the force of the market, not some suppression of innovation. I think that you can find home appliances that still last for a decade or more and offer more features while being more energy efficient.

I agree that the suppressors of innovation are taking a very short view. I also think that some of the larger corporations are able to sidestep the normal laws of the free market; they are fully capable of mounting campaigns that make the majority believe they need what that corporation has decided it wants to sell. Although, I have to say, it has been interesting to see consumer reaction to the amount of effort and money the entertainment and electronics industries have put into Blu-ray. It shows that we have all been burned before and are a bit wiser for it.

 

Also, to be pedantic, 100% of a traditional incandescent light-bulb's output goes to heat. It's just that a few percent is in the visible, so we have found these heaters to be useful. Better technology exists, but the resistance to adopting it seems to be a combination of deficient math skills and simple contrariness.

Again, though, let's not forget how politics, possibly being used by corporate special interests, plays a part in consumer ignorance. When math and logic fail, political candidates can always be counted on to turn it into a partisan thang.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Seriously though, after 100 years, ways to improve fuel efficiency and emissions together haven't progressed proportionately? I realize I'm arguing from incredulity here, but why wouldn't that happen? More efficient burning of fuels would seem to lead to both added economy and less emissions.

But for 50+ years of the last hundred, nobody thought efficiency or emissions were important goals. Gasoline was cheap and air pollution from other sources was a bigger problem. Power was the goal, and power is what they achieved in spades: the Model T had a 2.9-liter engine that made 20 horsepower, and a modern Taurus makes 260 horsepower from an engine only slightly larger.

 

After the past couple decades of regulations, products where emissions matter the most (like heavy trucks) have experienced huge improvements.

 

As we see corporate personhood gain more prominence in political affairs, and knowing that the US has made use of the military to further business interests in the oil industry, as well as having evidence that competing technology has been purchased and suppressed to support current profit centers, is it farfetched to think we are a bit bogged down with "business as usual" in favor of more efficient uses for our resources?

You should take a look at the state of patents in the software industry. Patents are used as offensive weapons rather than means to protect innovation, and some are worried that small businesses and entrepreneurs will stop innovating for fear of being attacked with a patent lawsuit.

[ecoli]

But on the other hand, regulators don't really do a better job than the market at directing efficiency. Gov't subsidies aren't really helping American photo-voltaic manufacturers. Though I suppose this has somewhat do with labor costs in the US (which you can also think of as an efficiency problem... it's simply not efficient to have some types of jobs here).

[CharonY]

But for 50+ years of the last hundred, nobody thought efficiency or emissions were important goals.

 

 

This is an important point. Improvements for the sake of improvement are note marketable. They must also provide incentives for the buyers to want them. If consumers are more interested in price rather than durability for certain products, innovations will flow into that area. Also, many innovations are also made that are not visible in the end product, e.g. more efficient production.

 

Innovations do not happen in a vacuum, ultimately, someone has to pay for them to be made (and more often than not it is a money sink).

[Phi for All]

Is the concept "progression" a synonym for "cultural evolution"? If so, one would think that progress only occurs when it's advantageous. In our culture, that generally means that there needs to be some sort of monetary/economic advantage for progression. That would lead to the conclusion that in our current culture, economic maintenance is king.

 

It seems to me that the concept of progression leading to an efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation is actually an ethical or value concept. Therefore, it would only be important if it were a value held by the majority of people, or if it was a value laid out in a constitution and thus had to be obeyed.

What if the majority of the people aren't made aware of the progress?

 

From The Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010.html

There were 5,135 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office told Secrecy News last week. It’s a 1% rise over the year before, and the highest total in more than a decade.

 

Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if government agencies believe that disclosure would be “detrimental to the national security.”

 

The current list of technology areas that is used to screen patent applications for possible restriction under the Invention Secrecy Act is not publicly available and has been denied under the Freedom of Information Act. (An appeal is pending.) But a previous list dated 1971 and obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky is available here (pdf).

 

Most of the listed technology areas are closely related to military applications. But some of them range more widely. Thus, the 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies “in excess of 70-80%.”

[dragonstar57]

it's really starting to seem no one is in business for anything other than profits anymore (whereas personal pride in the product and quality was once an element.)

[Phi for All]

This is an important point. Improvements for the sake of improvement are note marketable. They must also provide incentives for the buyers to want them. If consumers are more interested in price rather than durability for certain products, innovations will flow into that area. Also, many innovations are also made that are not visible in the end product, e.g. more efficient production.

 

Innovations do not happen in a vacuum, ultimately, someone has to pay for them to be made (and more often than not it is a money sink).

As I mentioned before, why wouldn't the auto makers want better fuel efficiency so their cars would be cheaper to run, leading to more use, leading to more sales? Gas prices have been considered high for the last 40 years, ever since the 1973 Oil Crisis in my experience.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As I mentioned before, why wouldn't the auto makers want better fuel efficiency so their cars would be cheaper to run, leading to more use, leading to more sales? Gas prices have been considered high for the last 40 years, ever since the 1973 Oil Crisis in my experience.

That's a fairly long-term strategy -- and in the short term, developing for higher efficiency makes their cars more expensive to purchase. And from the lightbulb debate we know that consumers consider up-front price before considering long-term cost of ownership.

 

I also wonder if mileage driven and gas prices are linked as directly like that. When gas prices spiked in recent years, I seem to recall demand from drivers dropping only slightly. People tend to drive where they need to go, and it's difficult to alter their driving habits or destinations without major cost incentives.

[iNow]

regulators don't really do a better job than the market at directing efficiency. Gov't subsidies aren't really helping American photo-voltaic manufacturers.

Reason dictates that this has much more to do with the scale of the subsidy (or lack thereof) than with the general concept of subsidization and its effectiveness.

 

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/9757

 

[jeskill]

What if the majority of the people aren't made aware of the progress?

 

From The Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/b...crecy_2010.html

 

 

You mean, what if the majority of people aren't aware that we have the potential to improve our efficiency via already-invented technology? That's a great question. The willingness to adopt the technology would probably still depend on the cost for the majority of people.

[Phi for All]

You mean, what if the majority of people aren't aware that we have the potential to improve our efficiency via already-invented technology? That's a great question. The willingness to adopt the technology would probably still depend on the cost for the majority of people.

Based on what FAS wrote, it's entirely possible that patents for solar technology that are better than 50% efficient and that might cost very little to manufacture have been grabbed by the PTO and shelved because a threat to existing technology like that could upset the economy and thus be considered a threat to national security. I hate using possibilities like this as an argument, but we can surely admit that such policies have been ill-used in the past and that it is likely that businesses with heavy investments that could be hurt would lobby for just such a use.

 

If you could have a solar converter that would power your home for a cost that would be as much or less than your current monthly electrical bill, and be paid off in three years so the rest of your investment was minimal maintenance, would you be willing to adopt the technology? It's just a what-if, but I think it illustrates what's at stake to have a law like this in place that could potentially stifle needed and wanted innovation.

[jeskill]

Based on what FAS wrote, it's entirely possible that patents for solar technology that are better than 50% efficient and that might cost very little to manufacture have been grabbed by the PTO and shelved because a threat to existing technology like that could upset the economy and thus be considered a threat to national security. I hate using possibilities like this as an argument, but we can surely admit that such policies have been ill-used in the past and that it is likely that businesses with heavy investments that could be hurt would lobby for just such a use.

 

If you could have a solar converter that would power your home for a cost that would be as much or less than your current monthly electrical bill, and be paid off in three years so the rest of your investment was minimal maintenance, would you be willing to adopt the technology? It's just a what-if, but I think it illustrates what's at stake to have a law like this in place that could potentially stifle needed and wanted innovation.

 

I would, if I owned a home. As a renter, that might be difficult.

 

Would you happen to know if these U.S. patent laws stifle renewable energy investment in other countries? For example, if someone in another country invented pretty much the same technology as one shelved by the PTO for whatever reason, are they obligated to shelve it as well?

[Phi for All]

I would, if I owned a home. As a renter, that might be difficult.

 

Would you happen to know if these U.S. patent laws stifle renewable energy investment in other countries? For example, if someone in another country invented pretty much the same technology as one shelved by the PTO for whatever reason, are they obligated to shelve it as well?

I don't know what other countries have in place to keep inventions from undermining their national security. I also don't know what kind of influence the USPTO (which, in this context, also means the Pentagon, DOD, DOE, NASA and some congressional committees) has with other countries. I do know that infringement includes anything which would be sold in the US. Since the US is such a huge market, not being allowed to sell here is a big deterrent.

 

It would be interesting to know if the USPTO can issue a seizure/gag-order on a particular patent and simultaneously grab foreign rights to it as well. Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with the ISA; you can't find out the extent of its reach due the secrecy involved, and those who might know face imprisonment (and due to the National Security/treasonable nature, maybe even death) for telling you.

[swansont]

Based on what FAS wrote, it's entirely possible that patents for solar technology that are better than 50% efficient and that might cost very little to manufacture have been grabbed by the PTO and shelved because a threat to existing technology like that could upset the economy and thus be considered a threat to national security. I hate using possibilities like this as an argument, but we can surely admit that such policies have been ill-used in the past and that it is likely that businesses with heavy investments that could be hurt would lobby for just such a use.

 

If you could have a solar converter that would power your home for a cost that would be as much or less than your current monthly electrical bill, and be paid off in three years so the rest of your investment was minimal maintenance, would you be willing to adopt the technology? It's just a what-if, but I think it illustrates what's at stake to have a law like this in place that could potentially stifle needed and wanted innovation.

 

 

The theoretical maximum for a single-junction cell is 35%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ShockleyQueisserFullCurve.svg

 

Multi-junction cells are still less than 50%, and AFAIK that's for concentrated solar. That 20% number was from 1971, when most types of cells had 10% efficiency or less. Production module efficiency is typically less than lab efficiency, because you have to make commercial modules robust enough to last out in the elements.

best research-cell efficiency graph

 

I don't think there are 50% cells out there, but in general, rather than shelving the patent, I think it's more likely the product is made and the government is the sole customer. i.e. it's not that there's no product, it's that there is no commercial product.

[CharonY]

That's a fairly long-term strategy -- and in the short term, developing for higher efficiency makes their cars more expensive to purchase. And from the lightbulb debate we know that consumers consider up-front price before considering long-term cost of ownership.

 

I also wonder if mileage driven and gas prices are linked as directly like that. When gas prices spiked in recent years, I seem to recall demand from drivers dropping only slightly. People tend to drive where they need to go, and it's difficult to alter their driving habits or destinations without major cost incentives.

 

Indeed. Driving habits do not change much. What I have noticed is that only after the price hikes around 2007-08 (I think) fuel efficiency became a real topic and shortly afterwards advertisements started that highlight fuel efficiency. Although, of course I may be prey to confirmation bias and just ignored it when they did it before. However, I remember that it was not that easy to find a used compact car at that time (for non-outrageous sums) but 1-2 years later they had a lot of them. I still remember seeing a single Yaris on display at that time, costing quite a bit more than I paid for in Germany.

And the same story in Germany, only after taxes increased for gas, suddenly even more efficient car series were put on the market, as the demand was rising. Companies basically react to consumers (or how they think the consumer is going to react), whereas consumers will likely to be swayed by a combination of actual conditions, PR and maybe education. Carbon emission is, for instance a new thing for which awareness is rising. A decade or so back few would be bothered by carbon footprints, for example.

[Phi for All]

I don't think there are 50% cells out there, but in general, rather than shelving the patent, I think it's more likely the product is made and the government is the sole customer. i.e. it's not that there's no product, it's that there is no commercial product.

And I can see why something like that would have great military applications and actually be a threat in other hands. Energy sources can be exploited and it doesn't have to be a nuclear reactor to warrant concern.

 

I just don't like the fact that the law seems like it, too, could easily be exploited and we'd never know. Exploited for commercial purposes, to keep existing technologies protected from competition. At least with a propaganda campaign, like the one used against hemp, we'd have the knowledge to make choices. With an Invention Secrecy Act gag-order, knowledge (and therefore choice) as well as innovation is suppressed.

[ecoli]

Reason dictates that this has much more to do with the scale of the subsidy (or lack thereof) than with the general concept of subsidization and its effectiveness.

 

That's a fair point, but doesn't necessarily prove that subsidies will scale. For example, if more subsidies increases the scope of solar manufacturing in the US, it doesn't necessarily follow that labor costs would scale the same way they would in China (or wherever).

 

Aside: I'm all for ending oil subsidies, as you may know.

 

 

What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

 

Forgot another potential aspect to this: if by "maintaining the economy" you mean a stable/ no net-growth economy, this could lower the standard of living/employment/etc if it means GDP per capita falls.

[rktpro]

What's more important? Efficient use of resources and unbridled innovation, or maintaining the economy and allowing business to thrive using proven methodologies?

 

What important is Sustainable Development. It aims at protecting environmental degradation by allowing judicious use of resources and conserving them for future too. But, it doesn't compromise with present needs and aims at development in present and future.

But, yes it is essential to get new innovative products but with a limit. You know, fuels are not being used at large rate for making or searching new fuels but for consumption. The point here should be that resources should be used in limit so that they remain conserved for future.

"We have not inherited the world from our forefathers - we have borrowed it from our children"

 

"There is enough for everyone's need but not enough for anyone's greed"

 

Forgot another potential aspect to this: if by "maintaining the economy" you mean a stable/ no net-growth economy, this could lower the standard of living/employment/etc if it means GDP per capita falls.

 

There can be jobless growth in economy too.

[Phi for All]

Forgot another potential aspect to this: if by "maintaining the economy" you mean a stable/ no net-growth economy, this could lower the standard of living/employment/etc if it means GDP per capita falls.

Maintaining as in keeping it healthy and growing.