Interesting monologue...
I share with you the feeeling that knowledge is a (almost) unlimited resource we should use to continue exponential growing, but you should pay attention on the other side of the problem. The simple way to view it is to think to two different plane of the economy, distribution and creation.
The first one, creation, is always connected to knowledge, IMO.
You find a way to obtain a result (good, service) with less resources (example: using solar power (photovoltaics) and an electric motor you can move a rock with a lot less effort than pushing it by hand). Most important, knowledge is infinitely duplicable (someone else can use the same idea without having to do the same effort of the first having it). Knowledge adds up, and grow (as water that full a reservoir) and spreading its total value raise (and so gain gain for the first one to find it, but its total value can not, because is limited from total of all wealth of rest of world, the other people). But important thing is: total wealth is bigger due to new knowledge (same work, more results, or same result and less work, or something in between).
The second plane, distribution, is the most understood. It is described by how much of total wealth you can grab. Most of this plane is dominated by some type of power (access to resource, access to information, violence, deception, etc).
The value of anything is due to its scarcity (you pay nothing to breath, there is enough air for all, until we will have poisoned enough!) and so any industry based solely on profit stop to grow when the desidered level of profit can be reduced (I will not produce all widgets people wants because law of diminisihing returns).
Why to say this? Because even if the resources are limitless, you will have some type of blockade to avoid them to be really available. Most of people work only on distribution plane, never on creation plane (think of advertising, burocracy, most of zero sum finance, and so on). The few who do, often are overwhelm by one or more of the big majority (the smartest, the luckiest, and so on).
Second, even if resource are limitless -and you have to prove it, burden of proof is your, IMHO- that do not mean that are (all) reachable. Thinking in time, if growing of use (demand) is quicker than growing of availability (supply), you will have shortage, and someone who want to mine it (and his interest is to mantain that scarcity forever).
IMO, economy should be a way to overcome that scarcity, but for most people is a way to exploit it, because is simpler to exploit existing (move wealth, operate on distribution plane) than create something (most of innovations today require very smart people, and often they're a lifelong quest, and often one (wo)man cannot suffice to achieve). How can you surprised that the world is moving as it is? How to change the rules is beyond my wisdom, even if I believe we should, and if we do not our current welfare will not last...
However, until we cannot start to teach economy taking in account that the same actions (rules) can have opposite effect according with belief (environment), ie according with target -gaining overcoming scarcity or gaining creating it- the whole building seems silly, to me.
The main point is: we are not teaching to tell apart between who gain creating wealth (and so return to the system, the big cake, more than it take, his slice of the cake), and who only gain moving wealth from someone else to himself (ditribution player: who try to take a bigger slice of the cake without growing it -zero sum game- or shrinking it -negative sum game- ) we will not teach how to evolve.
What do you think?
I share with you the feeeling that knowledge is a (almost) unlimited resource we should use to continue exponential growing, but you should pay attention on the other side of the problem. The simple way to view it is to think to two different plane of the economy, distribution and creation.
The first one, creation, is always connected to knowledge, IMO.
You find a way to obtain a result (good, service) with less resources (example: using solar power (photovoltaics) and an electric motor you can move a rock with a lot less effort than pushing it by hand). Most important, knowledge is infinitely duplicable (someone else can use the same idea without having to do the same effort of the first having it). Knowledge adds up, and grow (as water that full a reservoir) and spreading its total value raise (and so gain gain for the first one to find it, but its total value can not, because is limited from total of all wealth of rest of world, the other people). But important thing is: total wealth is bigger due to new knowledge (same work, more results, or same result and less work, or something in between).
The second plane, distribution, is the most understood. It is described by how much of total wealth you can grab. Most of this plane is dominated by some type of power (access to resource, access to information, violence, deception, etc).
The value of anything is due to its scarcity (you pay nothing to breath, there is enough air for all, until we will have poisoned enough!) and so any industry based solely on profit stop to grow when the desidered level of profit can be reduced (I will not produce all widgets people wants because law of diminisihing returns).
Why to say this? Because even if the resources are limitless, you will have some type of blockade to avoid them to be really available. Most of people work only on distribution plane, never on creation plane (think of advertising, burocracy, most of zero sum finance, and so on). The few who do, often are overwhelm by one or more of the big majority (the smartest, the luckiest, and so on).
Second, even if resource are limitless -and you have to prove it, burden of proof is your, IMHO- that do not mean that are (all) reachable. Thinking in time, if growing of use (demand) is quicker than growing of availability (supply), you will have shortage, and someone who want to mine it (and his interest is to mantain that scarcity forever).
IMO, economy should be a way to overcome that scarcity, but for most people is a way to exploit it, because is simpler to exploit existing (move wealth, operate on distribution plane) than create something (most of innovations today require very smart people, and often they're a lifelong quest, and often one (wo)man cannot suffice to achieve). How can you surprised that the world is moving as it is? How to change the rules is beyond my wisdom, even if I believe we should, and if we do not our current welfare will not last...
However, until we cannot start to teach economy taking in account that the same actions (rules) can have opposite effect according with belief (environment), ie according with target -gaining overcoming scarcity or gaining creating it- the whole building seems silly, to me.
The main point is: we are not teaching to tell apart between who gain creating wealth (and so return to the system, the big cake, more than it take, his slice of the cake), and who only gain moving wealth from someone else to himself (ditribution player: who try to take a bigger slice of the cake without growing it -zero sum game- or shrinking it -negative sum game- ) we will not teach how to evolve.
What do you think?
. However the allocation done with the rewards of distribution can in fact help the creators... so the circle is round ? 
. It said Economical Science... like in science... the apple fall all the time on Earth... however if the wind is strong enough the apple will fly 
