Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
If profit currently increases by 8% a year?
... and caring currently increases by 1/3% a year and well-being increases by 1/3% a year and lifespan increases by 1/3% a year and resource consumption increases by 8% a year ...
.... assuming population is constant ...
What is the wastage per year of excess profit and excess resources?
If both well being and life span is a direct consequence of caring, and a reduction in resources can be replaced by an increase in caring, what's the breakeven point whereby increase in profit is equal to increase in aggregate quality of life?
What is the current ratio of profit to caring and what would be the ratio of profit to caring at the breakeven point?
And what would be the increase in aggregate quality of life and decreases in profit and resource consumption, in the short term? If the breakeven point where applied every year what would be the total increase in aggregate quality of life after 100 years?
[Not sure if this is the right section, because most of the time it only seems to be short term profit that's considered in the section, and some economic game theory that ignores any intangible value or the resulting long term profitability and aggregate quality of life and reduction in resource consumption, but I thought there might be the relevant skills in this section to provide a sustainable solution.]
Caring is a human input. The other two are outputs. The percentages are based on some stats available over a long period. And base values don't matter because it's scaleable. Say one person ... one company .. GDP and rises each year. Could just choose base values of 1 if that's easier for you. It is based on GDP but that doesn't matter. Any definition of profit would do because the rules are built in to the model. The model is intended to show what long term effects there would be from a change in societal attitude with decreased motivation for competitive individual profit toward being more motivated and focused on real sustainable benefits for people in general. And caring and well-being I've just chosen percentages to match lifespans, which is the most objective measure available, but known to increase with experience of well-being.
1 Answer
- Steve BLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
You question makes no sense what-so-ever ..
Percentage of WHAT ??? (what are you 'base' values ???)
What do you mean by 'Profit' ???
What do you mean by "well being and life span is a direct consequence of caring" ???
[do you mean that increase in caring = increase in well being = increase in life span ??
if so, there is no point in stating all 3 ...]
Finally, your assumption of 'constant' population can not be correct IF life span is increasing ...
UNLESS birth rates are falling ...
... in which case the age distribution of the population is changing and PLAINLY it is impossible for 'Profits' and 'resource consumption' to continue to increase at 8% (and also impossible for 'caring' to increase long term) since an ageing population MEANS a reduction the number of people of working age ....