Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are we running out of resources?

tokcast-bretthall-31ddc0.netlify.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#31

Post by Majestic121 »

kiba wrote: post #29
volatilecarbon wrote: post #13

There were a lot of words here to simply fall back on the argument that innovation will solve every problem and do so before there is significant suffering. I agree that life will always go on, but this idea that consumption and quality of life can do nothing but rise when it is so dependent on the limited cheap energy and resources that we only learned to exploit a century ago is insanity to me. Our ever increasing…

Our ever increasing population and consumption will cause the price of energy and materials to increase as the low-hanging fruit is picked. It won't be the end of the world, but we will all be poorer and there will be suffering while we adjust. I too hope for some near free energy and material source to appear somehow and prevent this, but I struggle to see how you could blindly expect this to occur, not even enterta…

I don't understand the causality link you establish : "because human are 100 watts space heater". Are you saying that because humans produce heat, running out of resources is not really a problem?

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#32

Post by standardUser »

"Should any particular resource begin to run short, our creativity will bring into being the knowledge of how to replace that resource from either some other source or by using some other means to accomplish what that resource did."

The track record on this appears to be 100%. Are there any examples of a resource humanity has depleted and not effectively replaced or otherwise made irrelevant?

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#33

Post by verisimi »

simonh wrote: post #23
verisimi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we should petition the governance structure to create a maximum threshold of 10 million dollars per person. Sure, billionares will lose much of their wealth, and will try to hide in off shore funds (even more so than they do at present) but we can legislate for this and de-anonymise the wealth. We would then collapse those off shore legal structures, allocate the wealth to individuals, and apply the 10m limit…

Most of the wealth of billionaires is not cash, it’s locked up in their ownership of the companies they control. Elon Musk for example has 99% of his wealth in shares in Tesla, SpaceX etc. The only way to take that off him is to take those companies away and give control of them to someone else. It’s the same for Warren Buffett, the vast majority of his wealth is in ownership and control via BH. He sells some of that…

> Most of the wealth of billionaires is not cash, it’s locked up in their ownership of the companies they control. Elon Musk for example has 99% of his wealth in shares in Tesla, SpaceX etc.

Yes. But its possible to allocate a value to these assets.

The point I'm making is that it if we are trying to find a solution to these problems, the easiest one would be to take the billions in wealth - more wealth that can be spent in hundreds of lifetimes - away from the people who hold it and redistribute it to those who don't. This doesn't seem to be under consideration, but this is because it doesn't suit those that run corporations and governments - the elite aren't planning to shoot themselves in the foot.

As I said elsewhere, I don't think this is actually a valid solution. I only mention this as an equally invalid solution - putting the cost onto the population in general, ie the comparatively poor - is actively being implemented. Despite the obvious unfairness and greater complexity - the implementation of a technocratic system that allocates energy and resources.

So the new system is also insane and will be harder 99.9999% of the world's population, but does allow the billionaires to keep their comfort.

Which of these 2 insane options is better in your opinion?

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#34

Post by volatilecarbon »

standardUser wrote: post #32

"Should any particular resource begin to run short, our creativity will bring into being the knowledge of how to replace that resource from either some other source or by using some other means to accomplish what that resource did." The track record on this appears to be 100%. Are there any examples of a resource humanity has depleted and not effectively replaced or otherwise made irrelevant?

The only example I can think of is water. While it's not gone, the quality and cleanliness has decreased over time. There are many areas where you can no longer consume seafood due to high pollution levels. Same with swimming or drinking (boiling used to be sufficient to clean water, but it certainly isn't anymore).

Even "safe" seafood is only recommended to be consumed 2 times a week now due to the build up of heavy metals.

It's also true that we'll always been able to purify water for consumption/use, but there is a cost to that and I don't see that cost decreasing.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#35

Post by wly_cdgr »

jacknews wrote: post #24

I don't think we should strive to remake the galaxy for human comfort and desires, but instead strive to remake ourselves, to be better suited to the environments we inhabit.

I disagree. I think we should definitely try to remake not just our galaxy but the universe for our comfort and desires

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#37

Post by evrydayhustling »

volatilecarbon wrote: post #13

There were a lot of words here to simply fall back on the argument that innovation will solve every problem and do so before there is significant suffering. I agree that life will always go on, but this idea that consumption and quality of life can do nothing but rise when it is so dependent on the limited cheap energy and resources that we only learned to exploit a century ago is insanity to me. Our ever increasing…

Yeah, although the author is excited about new knowledge, he is ignoring our growing knowledge about toxicity and the costs of disrupting ecosystem resources, as well as the compounding expenses of maintaining a high standard of living at greater population density. You can be optimistic about the long arc of human progress and still realistic about our ability to take catastrophic steps backwards.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#38

Post by bdefore »

rmbyrro wrote: post #36

Is it just me or is it annoying that some articles take SEVERAL paragraphs to get to the point?

I'd agree this one takes too long to get to its thrust, but I'd argue the majority of articles I read gloss over nuance in an attempt to capture Twitter-soaked brains.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#40

Post by jacknews »

wly_cdgr wrote: post #35
jacknews wrote: post #24

I don't think we should strive to remake the galaxy for human comfort and desires, but instead strive to remake ourselves, to be better suited to the environments we inhabit.

I disagree. I think we should definitely try to remake not just our galaxy but the universe for our comfort and desires

If we have the power to transform the universe, we have the power to transform ourselves.

Why would we make the universe ape our biologically-inspired needs and desires, when we could transcend them and become so much more?

Post reply on HN