This would stop the currently exponential pace of growth from outpacing what society, and regulation, can adapt to. Thus avoiding the inevitable crash that will happen when we lose control of the exponentially accelerating train of technology, and it flies off the rails.
These would just need a different (higher) set point of the control loop, but still need some kind of regulating mechanism.
Even things like renewable deployment need some kind of selective dampening to make them work, e.g. to allow the old style energy infrastructure to keep up without the grid frequently collapsing.
Same for medical advancements. E.g. you don’t want the employment speed of new methods outpace the test and review measures ensuring people’s safety.
On this front there’s also fun challenges such as Javons Paradox where increased efficiency leads to increased consumption. This was observed all the way back to the Industrial Revolution as coal use did not decrease with increased efficiency but instead coal consumption simply kept increasing as it effectively became a cheaper input for the same amount of output
I remember seeing a similar effect when conventional lights became forbidden in the EU, followed by energy saving devices suddenly becoming widely available for decent prices.
EU expectation was now saving 80% of the power used for lighting.
Reality was that people instead just started putting up twice as many lights, and each with maximum available luminosity instead of the few dim ones they were content with before…
Fair, good point, yeah it would need some regulating mechanism to make sure that the gird can keep up and to make sure that medical advancements are safe to use.
I mean medical advancements already have a regulation mechanism in the form of certification that does indeed limit the pace of their development. It’s quite a clumsy one though and there’s no feedback loop, it’s more like a permanent break
Yes, i kinda forgot that.
Well said