41–50 of 66 posts
Two fundamental arguments of the thesis that we will not "run out" of natural resources for productive purpose have been made eloquently in: - The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials; and - Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switc…
Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary position.
Yup, that sounds sane to me.
"If we run out of easily accessible gas and oil reserves, we can just destroy the arable farmland of the world to find more!"
Yup, perfectly sane.
"If we run out of fresh water, we can just recycle sewage and run solar-powered desalination plants."
Says the economist who has never looked into the power required to desalinate sea water at the scale required to support a city.
Next he'll be saying, "oh, we can just power the desalination plants and hydroponic sheds with nuclear power" (which just means we'll run out of fissile material faster).
No mention of 'sustainable production' in his screed at all.
There is absolutely nothing sane about that essay. You can't live on money. You need food and water, and for the sake of food security you can't rely on power supplies other than the Sun to grow that food and bring you that water. A nation dependent on its power grid for food and water is ripe for terrorism, industrial sabotage or corporate oligarchy.
- Catastrophes happened in the past that killed lots of people. Technology did not always save our ass - Read "Collapse" - What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in your apartment?
> What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in your apartment? I think in a tradeoff of "There's literally no more room for anybody to live," and "I have to go outside to get sunlight," I'd choose the latter.
I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit. As long as we can get fusion to work. otherwise we better hope solar and battery prices drop enough to leave coal in the dust.
NO IDIOT. We have the technology to stop all this right bloody now! One of which is so overlooked it's offensive. Latest Gen Nuclear fission should be replacing coal plants en-mass. The fact that it's not is so disheartening that I just want every coal lobbyist to choke on his own toxic waste...
Two fundamental arguments of the thesis that we will not "run out" of natural resources for productive purpose have been made eloquently in: - The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials; and - Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switc…
> The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials Only if those materials exist in the actual world first. So not that limitless after all. (And that's if we indeed accept that the mind's potential is "limitless", which is non-scientific mumbo jumbo). > Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and…
Two fundamental arguments of the thesis that we will not "run out" of natural resources for productive purpose have been made eloquently in: - The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials; and - Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switc…
So how come cancer isn't eliminated yet? Many people still die.
Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary position.
Ugh, I hate the "balanced" argument for "middle ground". If one person says 2 + 2 = 4 and another says 2 + 2 = 6, the truth is NOT that 2 + 2 = 5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a subtle fallacy embedded in the idea that innovation will always save us, there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the current static snapshot of the world. Looking back over the past couple of hundred years of us overcoming challenge…
> there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the current static snapshot of the world Perhaps, but it's already getting to the point of "too little, too late" as far as convincing people climate change exists, not to mention our current infrastructur…
No, we are incredibly intelligent people who have invented amazing things.
50-100 years from now climate change will be viewed the way nuclear winter is viewed now.
In the language of the article you are an ecologist because you believe people will accept changes without doing anything about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless potential to select and pursue the use of materials Only if those materials exist in the actual world first. So not that limitless after all. (And that's if we indeed accept that the mind's potential is "limitless", which is non-scientific mumbo jumbo). > Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to actual supply and…
Have you read either or both of these books? you seem to be arguing with straw men.
If those are accurate, then there's no point in reading the books at all (like I wouldn't read a book described as "the best arguments why the Earth is flat").
Now the descriptions might not be accurate, and those could be excellent books. But, alas, the only information I have had to judge whether I should read those books comes from the OP introducing them with those descriptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the current static snapshot of the world Perhaps, but it's already getting to the point of "too little, too late" as far as convincing people climate change exists, not to mention our current infrastructur…
> we're really just apes with shiny toys No, we are incredibly intelligent people who have invented amazing things. 50-100 years from now climate change will be viewed the way nuclear winter is viewed now. In the language of the article you are an ecologist because you believe people will accept changes without doing anything about them.
These brains of ours really are not well-suited for considering really-long-term abstract uncertain problems that require altruism to solve (e.g. the environment as the tragedy of the commons, or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).
The thing is, it is hard to be objective about our limitations as a species: being that we are a member of our species we are each a bit biased. Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.
Note that I mean selfish in the larger sense -- that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own birthplace, country, class, time, etc.