Why most resources don't run out
rationaloptimist.com
Why most resources don't run out
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#2Interesting to dovetail that against the recent top article here that we are reaching the end of the antibiotics era. I hope we have a replacement for fossil fuel when the time comes, but I worry about too much "rational optimism". Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing, and Pangloss was sarcasm, not a role model.
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#3There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes qualitative shifts, and exceptions.
The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it happens, is that we're gambling something we can't afford to lose. So, it may well be the case that we do solve the problem -- but what if we don't? There are limits to technology, after all.
To me, the danger in placing excessive faith in technology is that it can bypass our critical thinking. For example, right now our own technology (nuclear weapons, or biological weapons as that technology develops) is the greatest threat to humanity's existence. So while technology is a great thing, it may well be our species undoing rather than its savior -- at least until (if) we survive long enough to colonize other planets or enhance our own morality such that we can handle the responsibility our technology demands.
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#4- 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?
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#5Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary position.
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#6Two 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 switch production accordingly.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815
[2] http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S, see Part One, Chapter 3
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#7Just because things have worked out in the past doesn't mean they always will. Despair might actually be the correct response: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-th...
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#8This view is so childish it is only taken seriously by those who already agree with it.
> Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out, petroleum is discovered
But not before many types of whale were nearly wiped out, and may yet go extinct.
> or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along,
What? Fertilizers have been known for centuries. Modern fertilizers are hardly a panacea. They come with costs of their own.
> or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.
This has nothing to do with any of the other arguments, and demand for copper is still high enough that people are stripping it out of vacant buildings via breaking and entering. Risking injury, jail time and even death.
> But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level off long before it does much harm.
It's pretty obvious if you look objectively at the data that "much harm" has already been done.
This blog post is the epitome of biased garbage.
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#9There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes qualitative shifts, and exceptions. The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it h…
Good analysis. I like to think that it's a bit like investing in a vehicle that may or may not be a ponzi scheme. It's worked so far, but that doesn't mean you bet the house on it.
Re: Why most resources don't run out
#10There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes qualitative shifts, and exceptions. The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it h…
This is indeed a problem. If there is an event which causes the extinction of humanity, then by definition we will not find a parallel event in the past to use for prediction. Yet to conclude that humanity will never go extinct is ridiculous. It's only going to happen once.
There's also another problem from the opposite direction. Resources have run out plenty of times. Entire civilizations have collapsed because they could no longer sustain themselves, because they used up something important and couldn't find more or come up with a substitute.
Yes, peak oil now could end up being like peak stone in the stone age, where there's plenty of it and we move on to better things well before we run out.
But peak oil now could also be like peak forest on Easter Island, which resulted in the collapse of civilization there.
I don't see anything in this article beyond naked hope for why peak oil must follow the former path rather than the latter. Yes, the history of resource exhaustion is extremely optimistic if you ignore all the times when it led to disaster, but that doesn't tell me anything.