Why most resources don't run out(rationaloptimist.com)
rationaloptimist.com
Why most resources don't run out
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-most-resources-don%27t-run-out.aspx
65 comments
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 after challenge, and drawing the conclusion that it is absolutely certain that can't happen more, is simply an absurd position to take on a rational basis.
If you do not wish to completely flip to the "everything's going to be peachy keen!" side, hey, fine. I'm not even sure anyone's really advocating that. But trying to salvage the panicky pure-ecologist view is in my mind frankly irrational. The one guarantee in life is change, and projecting out the present conditions into the indefinite future as a static precondition is always wrong. Mind you, it may be wrong because the nuclear exchange of 2021 wipes out 98% of humanity and not because the Happy Fun Solar Company solved all world energy problems in 2025, but still, change is inevitable. And what's going forth into the future is not mindless automata who passively experience challenges and fall over dead at a feather's push... what's going forward into the future are several billion human beings, which for all their faults, are still the cleverest things in the Universe we know about.
By the way, trying to mitigate the fact we've overcome challenges by pointing out that there are still challenges in the world is just another way to try to dodge dealing with the fact that we have overcome challenges. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if we survive another 20 years, that there will be even more challenges. I forsee no day coming where the human race can just sit back and declare total victory over challenges.
If you do not wish to completely flip to the "everything's going to be peachy keen!" side, hey, fine. I'm not even sure anyone's really advocating that. But trying to salvage the panicky pure-ecologist view is in my mind frankly irrational. The one guarantee in life is change, and projecting out the present conditions into the indefinite future as a static precondition is always wrong. Mind you, it may be wrong because the nuclear exchange of 2021 wipes out 98% of humanity and not because the Happy Fun Solar Company solved all world energy problems in 2025, but still, change is inevitable. And what's going forth into the future is not mindless automata who passively experience challenges and fall over dead at a feather's push... what's going forward into the future are several billion human beings, which for all their faults, are still the cleverest things in the Universe we know about.
By the way, trying to mitigate the fact we've overcome challenges by pointing out that there are still challenges in the world is just another way to try to dodge dealing with the fact that we have overcome challenges. I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if we survive another 20 years, that there will be even more challenges. I forsee no day coming where the human race can just sit back and declare total victory over challenges.
>Looking back over the past couple of hundred years of us overcoming challenge after challenge, and drawing the conclusion that it is absolutely certain that can't happen more, is simply an absurd position to take on a rational basis.
Looking a bit further there were society completely destroyed by themself (for example Easter Island http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/News-Events/Latest-News/News-...)
It's good to have both forces, a conservative and a progressive, to maintain equilibrium, it's never a good idea to put all the eggs in one basket
Edit: update link about Easter Island
Looking a bit further there were society completely destroyed by themself (for example Easter Island http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/News-Events/Latest-News/News-...)
It's good to have both forces, a conservative and a progressive, to maintain equilibrium, it's never a good idea to put all the eggs in one basket
Edit: update link about Easter Island
> 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 infrastructure is heavily invested in ignoring climate change. So continuing on our current course is bad, yes, but deviating at this point will only delay the inevitable. There are a number of cascading changes set in motion already.
And while I don't think humanity will be extincted by climate change, we'll certainly get our "hair mussed." As in, large amounts of drought/flood displacing millions of people into already crowded areas that don't have the infrastructure to support the influx...meaning plagues, food/water shortages, etc.
And to say, "technology will find a way to fix it!" is the bigger fallacy. We should be ready for a nice big shitstorm 50-100 years from now that no amount of scientists or computers can fix. After all, as much as we like to think of ourselves as little gods, we're really just apes with shiny toys. We've made it this far, but when you think about it, we've been through one ice age, a handful of plagues, and zero mass-extinctions. Not a big list. We're a blip on the geological radar, and we can disappear as fast as we came. We need to remember this.
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 infrastructure is heavily invested in ignoring climate change. So continuing on our current course is bad, yes, but deviating at this point will only delay the inevitable. There are a number of cascading changes set in motion already.
And while I don't think humanity will be extincted by climate change, we'll certainly get our "hair mussed." As in, large amounts of drought/flood displacing millions of people into already crowded areas that don't have the infrastructure to support the influx...meaning plagues, food/water shortages, etc.
And to say, "technology will find a way to fix it!" is the bigger fallacy. We should be ready for a nice big shitstorm 50-100 years from now that no amount of scientists or computers can fix. After all, as much as we like to think of ourselves as little gods, we're really just apes with shiny toys. We've made it this far, but when you think about it, we've been through one ice age, a handful of plagues, and zero mass-extinctions. Not a big list. We're a blip on the geological radar, and we can disappear as fast as we came. We need to remember this.
> 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.
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.
We surely have invented amazing things -- and we are intelligent -- and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.
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.
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.
See, when you say "shiny toy" you imply someone gave you the toy - you use it, but can't make it and don't know how it works. But we invented all we have, so we can rightfully be proud of it.
(I am aware you didn't invent that saying (I don't know who did), but you used it without thinking about how stupid of a saying it actually is.)
> and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.
OK, that's just so ridiculous as to verge on absurd. Our brains are so far removed from an ape that you wouldn't know we were related if all you could observe were actions (rather than form and shape).
> 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
Any yet somehow we have solved that over and over. And humans are the most altruistic of all the species - witness how we rush to help when there is a disaster, or how much charity we give - or that we invented of concept of charity in the first place!
> or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).
We haven't done that because we don't want to do that, not because we can't. And we don't want to for very good, thought out reasons, not because of some brain lack. You might disagree on the reasons themself, but you can't claim there were no reasons.
> Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.
And presumably you have done so? And you have one of these flawed brains? You seem to have a contradiction here. Not that I agree with your analysis anyway. You are trying to use tribalistic as a negative but it doesn't have that meaning. And we are not selfish, we are competitive. Selfish would imply hurting others for no gain of your own and while some individuals do that, as a whole we don't.
> that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own birthplace, country, class, time, etc.
We don't devalue them because they are far, but rather we don't believe we have the ability to do anything about their lives, so we ignore them. The closer someone is to you the more likely you are to help - is that your point? But people don't help more because they are more similar - people help more because they have more ability to do so.
(I am aware you didn't invent that saying (I don't know who did), but you used it without thinking about how stupid of a saying it actually is.)
> and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.
OK, that's just so ridiculous as to verge on absurd. Our brains are so far removed from an ape that you wouldn't know we were related if all you could observe were actions (rather than form and shape).
> 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
Any yet somehow we have solved that over and over. And humans are the most altruistic of all the species - witness how we rush to help when there is a disaster, or how much charity we give - or that we invented of concept of charity in the first place!
> or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).
We haven't done that because we don't want to do that, not because we can't. And we don't want to for very good, thought out reasons, not because of some brain lack. You might disagree on the reasons themself, but you can't claim there were no reasons.
> Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.
And presumably you have done so? And you have one of these flawed brains? You seem to have a contradiction here. Not that I agree with your analysis anyway. You are trying to use tribalistic as a negative but it doesn't have that meaning. And we are not selfish, we are competitive. Selfish would imply hurting others for no gain of your own and while some individuals do that, as a whole we don't.
> that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own birthplace, country, class, time, etc.
We don't devalue them because they are far, but rather we don't believe we have the ability to do anything about their lives, so we ignore them. The closer someone is to you the more likely you are to help - is that your point? But people don't help more because they are more similar - people help more because they have more ability to do so.
The way I would interpret the phrase 'apes with shiny toys' (although it was not me who used that phrase in this thread) -- is that we are slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology. Thoreau said: "Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end."
It's just that technology is far from a panacea, and it creates as many problems as it solves. Worse, the problems it creates can be of greater magnitude than its solutions. For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button away from extinction.
The tragedy of the commons is far from solved; one example is that the environment is a commons that industrialized nations abuse (and whether it will have a devastating effect on our future is yet to be decided). It is great that we have made moral progress as a species, and that we do have charity; yet how far has our morality progressed when we have food enough to feed the world yet starvation continues?
No, I'm not claiming that I've entirely overcome the bias of my brain, only that I'm aware that human brains were evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage.
Finally, I entirely disagree with your assertion that we devalue lives in other countries because we don't have the ability to affect their lives; of course we can affect the lives of people in other countries -- through charity as you yourself point out, and in the way that our politics affect other countries.
For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so (e.g. the civilian casualities in Afghanistan dwarf the losses of Americans in 9/11)[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_...
It's just that technology is far from a panacea, and it creates as many problems as it solves. Worse, the problems it creates can be of greater magnitude than its solutions. For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button away from extinction.
The tragedy of the commons is far from solved; one example is that the environment is a commons that industrialized nations abuse (and whether it will have a devastating effect on our future is yet to be decided). It is great that we have made moral progress as a species, and that we do have charity; yet how far has our morality progressed when we have food enough to feed the world yet starvation continues?
No, I'm not claiming that I've entirely overcome the bias of my brain, only that I'm aware that human brains were evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage.
Finally, I entirely disagree with your assertion that we devalue lives in other countries because we don't have the ability to affect their lives; of course we can affect the lives of people in other countries -- through charity as you yourself point out, and in the way that our politics affect other countries.
For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so (e.g. the civilian casualities in Afghanistan dwarf the losses of Americans in 9/11)[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_...
I apologize for saying you were the one who said that about the shiny toys.
But wow do we come from different viewpoints. Are you sure we both have the same type of brain? :)
> slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology
You still think we are more or less similar to apes? I'm having a hard time responding to this because I just can't understand how you think that way. The difference between humans and apes is not just a matter of degree, it's a matter of kind. Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans, despite how different they look to mice, and how similar to humans.
We aren't infatuated with technology - the use we have of technology is put to solving the same problems we've always had. How to connect with people, and how to live.
> For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button away from extinction.
We still aren't. Or are you under the mistaken impression that nuclear bombs could cause human extinction? All the bombs ever created couldn't do that, even if carefully detonated (they could cause devastation, but not not extinction). We have a greater capacity to cause disasters, but an even greater capacity to solve them, as a whole a net win. And did you loose sight of the fact that we made these bombs - and only used them twice? That speaks volumes about humanity. I bet you would have never predicted that if you were asked a few decades ago if we would use them.
> evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage
The modern world was not thrust upon us by an outside force, we created it because it suits us. We don't need to "evolve" to match it - we created it exactly the way we want.
> For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so
You have not made your point. Our president can affect Iraqi lives, but any individual person on the street can do nothing about it. We read about sectarian violence between two religious sects (Suni, Shi'ite) that to non-Muslims appear identical and just can't understand why they even fight, much less do anything about it.
But wow do we come from different viewpoints. Are you sure we both have the same type of brain? :)
> slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology
You still think we are more or less similar to apes? I'm having a hard time responding to this because I just can't understand how you think that way. The difference between humans and apes is not just a matter of degree, it's a matter of kind. Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans, despite how different they look to mice, and how similar to humans.
We aren't infatuated with technology - the use we have of technology is put to solving the same problems we've always had. How to connect with people, and how to live.
> For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button away from extinction.
We still aren't. Or are you under the mistaken impression that nuclear bombs could cause human extinction? All the bombs ever created couldn't do that, even if carefully detonated (they could cause devastation, but not not extinction). We have a greater capacity to cause disasters, but an even greater capacity to solve them, as a whole a net win. And did you loose sight of the fact that we made these bombs - and only used them twice? That speaks volumes about humanity. I bet you would have never predicted that if you were asked a few decades ago if we would use them.
> evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage
The modern world was not thrust upon us by an outside force, we created it because it suits us. We don't need to "evolve" to match it - we created it exactly the way we want.
> For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so
You have not made your point. Our president can affect Iraqi lives, but any individual person on the street can do nothing about it. We read about sectarian violence between two religious sects (Suni, Shi'ite) that to non-Muslims appear identical and just can't understand why they even fight, much less do anything about it.
At the risk of engaging in a futile argument, I feel like I have to interject.
> Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans
No, apes are social, tribal creatures that inter-communicate vocally and via body language. They use tools and manipulate their environment to make their quality of life better. They have territory and fight to the death to protect that territory. If you were to ask me what species this describes, the first thing that would pop into my head is "human."
If I were to say to someone "You're ugly and your mother's a whore" most people would have a sudden increase in adrenaline, followed by a wave of uncontrollable anger. Many times, this anger would drive us to do something like lash out physically or verbally. The emotions and feelings we experience throughout the day control us and shape our experience, just like they do an ape or a dog. Our difference from other mammals is really only defined by our ego, or our very basic awareness of self. Our awareness of self is rudimentary at best, yet our egos over-inflate it's abilities and importance.
We've created the environment around us as does a rabbit burrows into the ground. While the materials we fabricate and build with are unique, all we are doing is constructing shelters to feel safe.
Your example of nuclear bombs and having them for logical reasons is, in my opinion, incorrect. Our logical reasons for having weapons that could wipe out all of humanity can be reduced to little more than an alpha ape beating its chest at another. Rationalize it however you want. Most of our behavior, even on the macro level, is controlled by our inherently tribal instinct.
We have not transcended our animal nature, not in the slightest. We've only fooled ourselves into thinking we have. Language, technology, government; take these away and you've got apes. Even then, language and government are not unique to humans.
> Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans
No, apes are social, tribal creatures that inter-communicate vocally and via body language. They use tools and manipulate their environment to make their quality of life better. They have territory and fight to the death to protect that territory. If you were to ask me what species this describes, the first thing that would pop into my head is "human."
If I were to say to someone "You're ugly and your mother's a whore" most people would have a sudden increase in adrenaline, followed by a wave of uncontrollable anger. Many times, this anger would drive us to do something like lash out physically or verbally. The emotions and feelings we experience throughout the day control us and shape our experience, just like they do an ape or a dog. Our difference from other mammals is really only defined by our ego, or our very basic awareness of self. Our awareness of self is rudimentary at best, yet our egos over-inflate it's abilities and importance.
We've created the environment around us as does a rabbit burrows into the ground. While the materials we fabricate and build with are unique, all we are doing is constructing shelters to feel safe.
Your example of nuclear bombs and having them for logical reasons is, in my opinion, incorrect. Our logical reasons for having weapons that could wipe out all of humanity can be reduced to little more than an alpha ape beating its chest at another. Rationalize it however you want. Most of our behavior, even on the macro level, is controlled by our inherently tribal instinct.
We have not transcended our animal nature, not in the slightest. We've only fooled ourselves into thinking we have. Language, technology, government; take these away and you've got apes. Even then, language and government are not unique to humans.
I agree that humanity has a strong track record of overcoming challenges, and of course, that's a great thing! And I'm not saying that climate change will be something we'll be unable to overcome. However, it's unwise to bet the planet on an uncertainty: Let's just be a little cautious when we are talking about something with potentially devastating consequences.
I agree that predicting based on a static extension of the present may be limiting -- but prediction in general is a pretty tough game, and we should not put too much faith in any extrapolations into the distant future; meaning that there is much uncertainty in the future, and we should acknowledge that we can't know what will happen; and thus we should try to minimize risk if possible when dealing with singular resources (like our planet as a whole).
My main point is that technological optimism should not be an excuse for failing to ask inconvenient questions (that may demand opposing the current inertia of technology-driven capitalism): Are we negatively impacting the environment in a way that may undermine our grandchildren's quality of life? What happens as technology automates away a large percentage of cognitive jobs and displaces those workers? Is the current trend of increasingly powerful technology and relative moral stagnation likely to lead to our species' extinction?
I agree that predicting based on a static extension of the present may be limiting -- but prediction in general is a pretty tough game, and we should not put too much faith in any extrapolations into the distant future; meaning that there is much uncertainty in the future, and we should acknowledge that we can't know what will happen; and thus we should try to minimize risk if possible when dealing with singular resources (like our planet as a whole).
My main point is that technological optimism should not be an excuse for failing to ask inconvenient questions (that may demand opposing the current inertia of technology-driven capitalism): Are we negatively impacting the environment in a way that may undermine our grandchildren's quality of life? What happens as technology automates away a large percentage of cognitive jobs and displaces those workers? Is the current trend of increasingly powerful technology and relative moral stagnation likely to lead to our species' extinction?
Who is saying that we're inevitably doomed because we're guaranteed to continue on our current course?
The doomsayers are almost universally saying, we need to change course to avoid catastrophe. That's the complete opposite of being guaranteed to stay on course.
The doomsayers are almost universally saying, we need to change course to avoid catastrophe. That's the complete opposite of being guaranteed to stay on course.
It also ignores massive collapses of civilizations throughout history because of ecological collapse. In the past they were localized, but we are becoming more connected with each other.
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.
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.
The Easter Island story told by Jared Diamond in Collapse is arguably a myth. Do you have any other examples?
An alternate view of Easter Island includes these sorts of points:
- Forests on Easter Island were largely killed by rats (an invasive species) and to (productively!) clear land for agriculture, not to make statues.
- Civilization there grew and persisted and thrived even well after the trees were gone due to human cleverness at finding and making new resources. (The Islanders ate fish and rats and eggs and chickens at that time)
- When their civilization eventually collapsed it was because they were pushed. It was due to war and diseases brought by outside invaders who sold a lot of the locals into slavery.
Mark Lynas sums up the situation here: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the-myth-of-easter-islands-...
Jared Diamond, sticking to his guns, responds to Mark: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the-myths-of-easter-island-...
Lipo and Hunt in turn respond to Jared's response filling in lots more detail: http://www.evobeach.com/2011/10/diamond-attempts-to-defend-m...
Leading quote: "Diamond would have readers believe that the majority of archeologists who have studied Easter Island support his thesis. It is simply not true. The new evidence that we and other serious scholars have provided over the past decade not only contradicts the old story that Diamond has so heavily invested in, but has led to a new consensus among the majority of scholars around our work."
UPDATE: Okay, now THIS is my favorite thing I found revisiting this old argument. Diamond thinks the statues were moved on logs but Lipo thinks they were "walked" into place upright...and here is a video showing how one does that - walks a multi-ton statue upright using only people and ropes:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/07/easter-island/walk...
An alternate view of Easter Island includes these sorts of points:
- Forests on Easter Island were largely killed by rats (an invasive species) and to (productively!) clear land for agriculture, not to make statues.
- Civilization there grew and persisted and thrived even well after the trees were gone due to human cleverness at finding and making new resources. (The Islanders ate fish and rats and eggs and chickens at that time)
- When their civilization eventually collapsed it was because they were pushed. It was due to war and diseases brought by outside invaders who sold a lot of the locals into slavery.
Mark Lynas sums up the situation here: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the-myth-of-easter-islands-...
Jared Diamond, sticking to his guns, responds to Mark: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the-myths-of-easter-island-...
Lipo and Hunt in turn respond to Jared's response filling in lots more detail: http://www.evobeach.com/2011/10/diamond-attempts-to-defend-m...
Leading quote: "Diamond would have readers believe that the majority of archeologists who have studied Easter Island support his thesis. It is simply not true. The new evidence that we and other serious scholars have provided over the past decade not only contradicts the old story that Diamond has so heavily invested in, but has led to a new consensus among the majority of scholars around our work."
UPDATE: Okay, now THIS is my favorite thing I found revisiting this old argument. Diamond thinks the statues were moved on logs but Lipo thinks they were "walked" into place upright...and here is a video showing how one does that - walks a multi-ton statue upright using only people and ropes:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/07/easter-island/walk...
The question of what the trees were used for and how the statues were moved, while interesting in general, isn't relevant here. When deciding whether Easter Island represents a collapse due to resource exhaustion, the relevant questions are whether the trees were cut down at all (seems to be no dispute there), whether this represents general ecological destruction (in dispute, it seems), whether the population declined precipitously (no dispute here either), and finally whether that decline was caused by the ecological destruction.
Researching the question a bit (and not using Diamond as a reference, at least not directly or intentionally) I can't see any support for the idea that the island was doing fine until outsiders bought war, disease, and slavery. As far as I can see, the war, disease, and slavery period followed European contact, but the initial population decline from a peak of around 15,000 down to 2-3,000 happened before European contact.
In the absence of external pressures, that seems to leave only resource depletion as the possible cause.
Even if it was external, though, why is "land which isn't being overrun by invaders" different from any other resource?
As for other examples, Cahokia and the Anasazi are two possible examples in North America. The Norse settlement in Greenland is a more likely but smaller example. The collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization is another possible example. Malden and Pitcairn are two more potential Pacific island examples, both supporting human settlement for centuries, but eventually containing no people by the time of European discovery. Finally, there's good evidence for a sharp genetic bottleneck in the human population deep in pre-history, in which the world population was reduced to 10,000 or less. The cause isn't too clear, but whether it was a volcano, gradual climate change, or something else, it seems that some sort of resource limitation has to be at work.
None of these are completely clear-cut, but we can't really expect them to be. A collapsed civilization isn't necessarily going to leave a lot of records. Even if some of these were due to something else, it doesn't seem likely that they all were.
Researching the question a bit (and not using Diamond as a reference, at least not directly or intentionally) I can't see any support for the idea that the island was doing fine until outsiders bought war, disease, and slavery. As far as I can see, the war, disease, and slavery period followed European contact, but the initial population decline from a peak of around 15,000 down to 2-3,000 happened before European contact.
In the absence of external pressures, that seems to leave only resource depletion as the possible cause.
Even if it was external, though, why is "land which isn't being overrun by invaders" different from any other resource?
As for other examples, Cahokia and the Anasazi are two possible examples in North America. The Norse settlement in Greenland is a more likely but smaller example. The collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization is another possible example. Malden and Pitcairn are two more potential Pacific island examples, both supporting human settlement for centuries, but eventually containing no people by the time of European discovery. Finally, there's good evidence for a sharp genetic bottleneck in the human population deep in pre-history, in which the world population was reduced to 10,000 or less. The cause isn't too clear, but whether it was a volcano, gradual climate change, or something else, it seems that some sort of resource limitation has to be at work.
None of these are completely clear-cut, but we can't really expect them to be. A collapsed civilization isn't necessarily going to leave a lot of records. Even if some of these were due to something else, it doesn't seem likely that they all were.
> whether the population declined precipitously (no dispute here either)
No, that is definitely one of the items under dispute. Lipo claims the population never reached that high a peak and did not substantially decline until after outsiders came.
> I can't see any support for the idea that the island was doing fine until outsiders bought war, disease, and slavery. As far as I can see, the war, disease, and slavery period followed European contact, but the initial population decline from a peak of around 15,000 down to 2-3,000 happened before European contact.
Lipo says that the claim that the population followed that sort of trajectory was essentially an early rough guess not based on actual data. A popular one, so you might find it in multiple sources, but a guess nonetheless. In response, quoting from that last link I gave before:
> Finally, Diamond ignores field research reporting dated domestic habitation sites (see Hunt and Lipo 2009 for discussion). When the habitations are plotted in fifty-year intervals, the number of those occupied clearly shows that the first and only sustained decline, as a relative measure of the population, began only in the first interval following European contact. Before contact the data show a population that is growing and stabilizing, as reflected in their habitations across the landscape. There is no evidence of population decline, let alone “collapse” until after European contact. Indeed, there is direct, abundant evidence that population numbers grew, stabilized, and then fell only after European contact beginning in 1722.
(source: http://www.evobeach.com/2011/10/diamond-attempts-to-defend-m... )
> Even if it was external, though, why is "land which isn't being overrun by invaders" different from any other resource?
That story would lead to a very different conclusion, especially if you want to turn the story into an analogy for how we should treat the earth as a whole. Should we worry more about building a Space Defense network to protect us from aliens and not so much about preserving forests? :-)
No, that is definitely one of the items under dispute. Lipo claims the population never reached that high a peak and did not substantially decline until after outsiders came.
> I can't see any support for the idea that the island was doing fine until outsiders bought war, disease, and slavery. As far as I can see, the war, disease, and slavery period followed European contact, but the initial population decline from a peak of around 15,000 down to 2-3,000 happened before European contact.
Lipo says that the claim that the population followed that sort of trajectory was essentially an early rough guess not based on actual data. A popular one, so you might find it in multiple sources, but a guess nonetheless. In response, quoting from that last link I gave before:
> Finally, Diamond ignores field research reporting dated domestic habitation sites (see Hunt and Lipo 2009 for discussion). When the habitations are plotted in fifty-year intervals, the number of those occupied clearly shows that the first and only sustained decline, as a relative measure of the population, began only in the first interval following European contact. Before contact the data show a population that is growing and stabilizing, as reflected in their habitations across the landscape. There is no evidence of population decline, let alone “collapse” until after European contact. Indeed, there is direct, abundant evidence that population numbers grew, stabilized, and then fell only after European contact beginning in 1722.
(source: http://www.evobeach.com/2011/10/diamond-attempts-to-defend-m... )
> Even if it was external, though, why is "land which isn't being overrun by invaders" different from any other resource?
That story would lead to a very different conclusion, especially if you want to turn the story into an analogy for how we should treat the earth as a whole. Should we worry more about building a Space Defense network to protect us from aliens and not so much about preserving forests? :-)
You misunderstand my "un-invaded land as a resource" point.
I'm just pointing out that un-invaded land is a resource, and that these people weren't able to cope with the loss of that resource.
So, is there something about un-invaded land that makes it different from other resources, such that humans can cope with losing others but not that one? If so, what makes it different? If not, then it shows that resource exhaustion can kill civilizations.
If un-invaded land is unique somehow, then obviously we're not under threat in that respect. But if it's not, then it demonstrates that this class of problem exists, and shows that we need to take steps to ensure we don't run out of the resources we do have looming problems with.
I'm just pointing out that un-invaded land is a resource, and that these people weren't able to cope with the loss of that resource.
So, is there something about un-invaded land that makes it different from other resources, such that humans can cope with losing others but not that one? If so, what makes it different? If not, then it shows that resource exhaustion can kill civilizations.
If un-invaded land is unique somehow, then obviously we're not under threat in that respect. But if it's not, then it demonstrates that this class of problem exists, and shows that we need to take steps to ensure we don't run out of the resources we do have looming problems with.
That's an odd take on it. No, I'd mainly say there's something about being invaded that can kill a civilization. A great many somethings. Though certainly some of them are environmental. It'd be harder to live there the same way after an invader used the land to graze sheep. Or after an invader brought in smallpox or rats or any number of other unwanted interlopers.
What's special about "un-invaded land" is that it has a bunch of people surviving on it living in a certain way and if they've been living there long enough, their way of life probably works pretty well for them. If some important resource they need is getting scarcer it's NOT going to disappear instantaneously all at once as per the poetic image of a "guy cutting down the last tree" catching everyone by surprise. As any given resource gets scarcer it gradually gets harder and harder to rely on access to it, which means people first have a small, then a moderate, then a large, and eventually a MASSIVE incentive to find substitutes. Other ways of living. Other things to eat. Other forms of shelter. Humans are a creative bunch; if there are other POSSIBLE ways to survive, we're pretty likely to find them given the existence of hundreds or thousands of people in an area whose lives depend on it and who have some ability to share info, try out ideas, and copy what works.
Invasion is a massive sudden shock to the system; some massive shocks aren't survivable.
What's special about "un-invaded land" is that it has a bunch of people surviving on it living in a certain way and if they've been living there long enough, their way of life probably works pretty well for them. If some important resource they need is getting scarcer it's NOT going to disappear instantaneously all at once as per the poetic image of a "guy cutting down the last tree" catching everyone by surprise. As any given resource gets scarcer it gradually gets harder and harder to rely on access to it, which means people first have a small, then a moderate, then a large, and eventually a MASSIVE incentive to find substitutes. Other ways of living. Other things to eat. Other forms of shelter. Humans are a creative bunch; if there are other POSSIBLE ways to survive, we're pretty likely to find them given the existence of hundreds or thousands of people in an area whose lives depend on it and who have some ability to share info, try out ideas, and copy what works.
Invasion is a massive sudden shock to the system; some massive shocks aren't survivable.
So what you're saying is, resource depletion is a problem if it happens fast enough?
I don't see the practical difference between losing your land to invaders and losing your land to, say, sea level rise, in terms of one's ability to cope with it and survive.
In any case, this is a lot of argument over what was mostly a throwaway argument. The precise nature of the Easter Island collapse doesn't much matter since it's not an isolated example anyway.
I don't see the practical difference between losing your land to invaders and losing your land to, say, sea level rise, in terms of one's ability to cope with it and survive.
In any case, this is a lot of argument over what was mostly a throwaway argument. The precise nature of the Easter Island collapse doesn't much matter since it's not an isolated example anyway.
In a market economy with strong property rights, complete resource depletion is extremely unlikely because prices telegraph in advance the information that the resource is becoming scarce. But what I'm saying is that even in a non-market economy something similar can happen. Suppose the resource is food. When there's a big herd of dumb animals on the land it might not be worth anyone's while to try fishing instead. As the animals get fewer and smarter, it gets harder to get enough to eat; that is an incentive for individuals or families to try fishing or farming or moving away even if there's no trade or prices or futures market.
Losing land to sea level rise - if it happens - happens so slowly and incrementally that there's plenty of time to move elsewhere or build levees or put things up on stilts. On a timescale of decades and centuries, things fall down and break; when you rebuild you do it a bit further inland or somewhere else.
We might be having problems because an ecologist's definition of "resources" and "consumption" is different from an economist's; I tend towards the latter. I fear that if we listen to the ecologists we might inadvertently create the very scarcity they fear.
(Matt Ridley briefly discussed the difference between the two in a WSJ article this week: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230427990... )
Losing land to sea level rise - if it happens - happens so slowly and incrementally that there's plenty of time to move elsewhere or build levees or put things up on stilts. On a timescale of decades and centuries, things fall down and break; when you rebuild you do it a bit further inland or somewhere else.
We might be having problems because an ecologist's definition of "resources" and "consumption" is different from an economist's; I tend towards the latter. I fear that if we listen to the ecologists we might inadvertently create the very scarcity they fear.
(Matt Ridley briefly discussed the difference between the two in a WSJ article this week: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230427990... )
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.
The problem with this argument is that it is both an argument for and against climate change, and so both for and against taking action on climate change.
Humans have a history of (locally) causing massive pollution and other various disasters, like removing topsoil and destroying agriculture. Mining. Extermination of non-tiny animals in a large area. The list goes on. Every time this turned out not to be a problem. Will it now ? If so it will be the first time.
But of course, climate change is not based on physical evidence, nor first principles. It is based on statistical trend analysis. Climate change only has basic explanations of mechanisms of change in the athmosphere, they cannot physically model a warming planet from first principles, only by extrapolating past observations into the future can predictions be made.
Of course the truth is that both facts are chaotic. In other words, every event in human history is a first, and every change in the athmosphere is a first. For either domain, any particular event is without precedent, and will never happen the same way again. This does not exclude, of course, that one observes patterns. Temperature has been rising, and there are many historically analogous periods, but none that are quite the same. So will the same thing happen ?
Unfortunately we know the mathematical theory underpinning this. The answer is sure to disappoint all involved : we don't know, and we don't know the chances either. And no algorithm can ever be used to arrive at a correct answer (note the problem is NOT that we don't know, it's that we can't ever know [1]). It is impossible. It is extremely obvious in human history. When we move past oil (and we will, in the next decade or two), there will be a key ingredient that wasn't there before that completely determines the outcome. It will be a first, that's for sure. Either we find a new energy source that economically blows oil out of the water, or it will be the first long-term sustained drop in global economic activity due to running out of energy. It may also be something different entirely (e.g. WWIII). Maybe thorium reactors start taking the world by storm. Nobody can tell you, with any amount of certainty, what this grand event will be, but it is a surety that it will come.
What isn't entirely obvious is that the same is true for climate. Whatever happens, it will be a first, and there will be some event, some factor, that completely determines the outcome, but we can't see it just yet. Firstly, there is of course the potential for large external factors that are obviously so large as to be much more powerful than anything happening on the earth surface itself. Think volcanic activity or a comet, but likely there are 100 such events that could happen we don't even know about. Both events can both raise and drop the temperature by ridiculous amounts, far outstripping what we could ever do with co2. Other things could happen. Suddenly the sea floor starts leaking methane on a large scale, like what happens in any earthquake, but it is sustained. There's certainly enough methane down there to make human solar forcing look like a cow fart. Maybe we're wrong about cloud cover (still a possibility) and the situation simply self-corrects past a certain threshold, something that no statistical model of the past would ever have been able to uncover. Maybe we do get a single world government and actually stand a chance of fixing the situation. Maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran start doing what they've been threatening eachother with for 100 years now and Iran nukes the oil fields there. Maybe it doesn't correct at all, solar forcing happens, and animal life becomes very difficult for a few centuries/millenia.
But what is an absolute certainty, as you say, is that the situation will not continue as it's been progressing so far. That is pretty much the only impossibility.
Note that the obvious defense of climate theory here, that it results from deterministic actions, and so is not random/chaotic at all, is both correct and completely beside the point. Random systems are not chaotic nor vice versa. Deterministic systems that exhibit 3 properties are chaotic. None of them involves randomness. Neither chaotic nor random systems are predictable [1].
As to whether chaos theory really applies to climate theory the following can be said to summarize things : for 150+ years, the study of chaos theory and the study of climate were one and the same field of study. This has changed, but not for good reasons. There is a longstanding argument that long-term effect dampen the medium term unpredictability, but there is no proof for this, in fact there is plenty of contradicting evidence.
And the last defence of climate theory is that climate theory only studies averages. They admit that short-term change might be chaotic, but long-term averages aren't. They certainly don't look it, after all. This flies in the face of the central insight of statistics : the central limit theorem (it basically states that any variable you study must be convergent, that statistics doesn't work on divergent series. And it doesn't, that can be easily tested). This argument is incompatible with statistics on a theoretical level. Therefore it does not matter if this argument is true or not. If this argument is true, then there is no correct way to calculate even an average. If it is false, then you simply can't correctly average certain variables (including a lot of climate variables). The "false" seems to me the sane option, but it doesn't even matter which you pick.
Lots of scientific fields of study have these "existential" problems. That doesn't mean they have no value, just that they are fundamentally limited in a few ways.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Humans have a history of (locally) causing massive pollution and other various disasters, like removing topsoil and destroying agriculture. Mining. Extermination of non-tiny animals in a large area. The list goes on. Every time this turned out not to be a problem. Will it now ? If so it will be the first time.
But of course, climate change is not based on physical evidence, nor first principles. It is based on statistical trend analysis. Climate change only has basic explanations of mechanisms of change in the athmosphere, they cannot physically model a warming planet from first principles, only by extrapolating past observations into the future can predictions be made.
Of course the truth is that both facts are chaotic. In other words, every event in human history is a first, and every change in the athmosphere is a first. For either domain, any particular event is without precedent, and will never happen the same way again. This does not exclude, of course, that one observes patterns. Temperature has been rising, and there are many historically analogous periods, but none that are quite the same. So will the same thing happen ?
Unfortunately we know the mathematical theory underpinning this. The answer is sure to disappoint all involved : we don't know, and we don't know the chances either. And no algorithm can ever be used to arrive at a correct answer (note the problem is NOT that we don't know, it's that we can't ever know [1]). It is impossible. It is extremely obvious in human history. When we move past oil (and we will, in the next decade or two), there will be a key ingredient that wasn't there before that completely determines the outcome. It will be a first, that's for sure. Either we find a new energy source that economically blows oil out of the water, or it will be the first long-term sustained drop in global economic activity due to running out of energy. It may also be something different entirely (e.g. WWIII). Maybe thorium reactors start taking the world by storm. Nobody can tell you, with any amount of certainty, what this grand event will be, but it is a surety that it will come.
What isn't entirely obvious is that the same is true for climate. Whatever happens, it will be a first, and there will be some event, some factor, that completely determines the outcome, but we can't see it just yet. Firstly, there is of course the potential for large external factors that are obviously so large as to be much more powerful than anything happening on the earth surface itself. Think volcanic activity or a comet, but likely there are 100 such events that could happen we don't even know about. Both events can both raise and drop the temperature by ridiculous amounts, far outstripping what we could ever do with co2. Other things could happen. Suddenly the sea floor starts leaking methane on a large scale, like what happens in any earthquake, but it is sustained. There's certainly enough methane down there to make human solar forcing look like a cow fart. Maybe we're wrong about cloud cover (still a possibility) and the situation simply self-corrects past a certain threshold, something that no statistical model of the past would ever have been able to uncover. Maybe we do get a single world government and actually stand a chance of fixing the situation. Maybe Saudi Arabia and Iran start doing what they've been threatening eachother with for 100 years now and Iran nukes the oil fields there. Maybe it doesn't correct at all, solar forcing happens, and animal life becomes very difficult for a few centuries/millenia.
But what is an absolute certainty, as you say, is that the situation will not continue as it's been progressing so far. That is pretty much the only impossibility.
Note that the obvious defense of climate theory here, that it results from deterministic actions, and so is not random/chaotic at all, is both correct and completely beside the point. Random systems are not chaotic nor vice versa. Deterministic systems that exhibit 3 properties are chaotic. None of them involves randomness. Neither chaotic nor random systems are predictable [1].
As to whether chaos theory really applies to climate theory the following can be said to summarize things : for 150+ years, the study of chaos theory and the study of climate were one and the same field of study. This has changed, but not for good reasons. There is a longstanding argument that long-term effect dampen the medium term unpredictability, but there is no proof for this, in fact there is plenty of contradicting evidence.
And the last defence of climate theory is that climate theory only studies averages. They admit that short-term change might be chaotic, but long-term averages aren't. They certainly don't look it, after all. This flies in the face of the central insight of statistics : the central limit theorem (it basically states that any variable you study must be convergent, that statistics doesn't work on divergent series. And it doesn't, that can be easily tested). This argument is incompatible with statistics on a theoretical level. Therefore it does not matter if this argument is true or not. If this argument is true, then there is no correct way to calculate even an average. If it is false, then you simply can't correctly average certain variables (including a lot of climate variables). The "false" seems to me the sane option, but it doesn't even matter which you pick.
Lots of scientific fields of study have these "existential" problems. That doesn't mean they have no value, just that they are fundamentally limited in a few ways.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
This 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.
> 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.
Not to mention that modern fertilizer is petro-chemical and it is very much limited by the finiteness of those resources.
"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"
The old correlation!=cause problem...
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"
The old correlation!=cause problem...
> But thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor in Ireland.
As an economist, how can the author not see that the hidden environmental costs are growing? As markets demand natural gas within a cost range while resources are limited, the solution becomes to pass this cost off on the environment. The environment doesn't have a powerful advocacy and can't fight back.
I am disappointed that economists buy these models so readily without doing real accounting as to all costs. I think this is a problem in modern economics — we can easily measure monetary costs through accounting and prices, but other costs are hard to measure so the model treats them as residuals. Then, they run predictions with their models that completely ignore environmental costs. Don't argue markets don't have a cost on the environment when you've failed to include environmental costs in your models.
As an economist, how can the author not see that the hidden environmental costs are growing? As markets demand natural gas within a cost range while resources are limited, the solution becomes to pass this cost off on the environment. The environment doesn't have a powerful advocacy and can't fight back.
I am disappointed that economists buy these models so readily without doing real accounting as to all costs. I think this is a problem in modern economics — we can easily measure monetary costs through accounting and prices, but other costs are hard to measure so the model treats them as residuals. Then, they run predictions with their models that completely ignore environmental costs. Don't argue markets don't have a cost on the environment when you've failed to include environmental costs in your models.
The author's view is terribly shortsighted. "I'm going to run out of money next month" versus "I'm going to run out of money next year". Same outcome.
His fallacy, and it's a common one, is thinking that because the problem may be postponed past his own lifetime, that it doesn't matter. What about a hundred years from now? A thousand? Ten thousand?
I for one don't relish leaving my descendants a future in which environmental equilibrium is reached by starving or shooting a few billion surplus people.
His fallacy, and it's a common one, is thinking that because the problem may be postponed past his own lifetime, that it doesn't matter. What about a hundred years from now? A thousand? Ten thousand?
I for one don't relish leaving my descendants a future in which environmental equilibrium is reached by starving or shooting a few billion surplus people.
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 switch production accordingly.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815
[2] http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S, see Part One, Chapter 3
- 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
>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 demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch production accordingly.
Says nothing about resources "not running out" -- just about distribution and demand of them, when they are available. A tribe of capitalists in a desert without water would still die of first.
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 demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch production accordingly.
Says nothing about resources "not running out" -- just about distribution and demand of them, when they are available. A tribe of capitalists in a desert without water would still die of first.
Have you read either or both of these books? you seem to be arguing with straw men.
I'm arguing with the very phrases used here supposedly to describe the gist of each book.
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.
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.
Interesting 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.
"Rational opimist"? Sounds rather dellusional to me, one of those guys that made a religion out of science and/or technology.
>"But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again."
Yeah, just like Bertrand Russel's inductivist (and rational optimist) turkey:
The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”.
However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.
>"But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits again and again."
Yeah, just like Bertrand Russel's inductivist (and rational optimist) turkey:
The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”.
However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.
- 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?
- 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 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.
Sure, but I don't think it really qualifies as "see, science solves every problem". And what if there are houses everywhere? There will be time slots for rooftops. After a certain size of the houses, there will not be enough rooftops for everyone to get sunshine.
I'll take option 3: encourage smaller families and lower fertility rates.
Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary position.
"If we run out of phosphorous reserves, we can just dredge the rivers of the world to get it back!"
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.
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.
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.
If one person says 2 + 2 = 4 and another says 2 + 2 = 6, the truth is NOT that 2 + 2 = 5.
At least he included multiple positive stories of government interference. If the free market says something nessesary is not worth it, tip the scales to MAKE it worth it. Tax hikes on polluters and non renewables and tax cuts for going free would go a LONG way. Too bad it won't ever happen.
This is about as unbalanced and binary as you can possibly get. That alone doesn't make it wrong, but this article is so far from the middle ground that you'd need a telescope to see it.
You want to settle a dispute between economists and ecologists? Ask a physicist: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/about-this-blog/
Or ask a cartoon physicist on xkcd.
http://xkcd.com/793/
http://xkcd.com/793/
Just 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...
Time lag is a critical issue that needs to be accounted for. If we assume that innovation will mediate the worst effects of global warming then we neglect the possibility that forcing conditions created today may have consequences that manifest themselves over the next 20 or 50 years. Global warming is not like any problem that humanity has ever had to confront and it's dangerous to wave away the scale and complexity of the problem as something innovation will eventually rectify.
Yes, but the free market will invent time machines and we can go back 50 years and warn ourselves. The free market will save us.
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.
Our environment can't handle the damage by the time we get fusion to be useful for us or solar/battery become efficient/cost effective. We need to be thinking for today, as in right friggen now. Everyone I have ever seen or heard talk about this issue is always proposing the solution won't be too far away because of X.
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...
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...
I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit.
So in short: The free market will save us.
It always has.
The world climate is collapsing (hypothetical scenario).
The proponents of free market say:
"The market will adapt to fix the problems causing climate change!"
What really happens:
"I've built a mask that lets you breath the Earth's new poisonous atmosphere!"
"Well my mask lets you breath twice as much air per minute!!"
"My mask does all this !but! shows an interactive map of the next sulfuric acid rain storm so you can find your way to our nearest BioShelter2000. Buy now, and you get a month BioShelter pass, letting you stay for free up to 4 hours per day, including use of the bathroom!"
The proponents of free market say:
"The market will adapt to fix the problems causing climate change!"
What really happens:
"I've built a mask that lets you breath the Earth's new poisonous atmosphere!"
"Well my mask lets you breath twice as much air per minute!!"
"My mask does all this !but! shows an interactive map of the next sulfuric acid rain storm so you can find your way to our nearest BioShelter2000. Buy now, and you get a month BioShelter pass, letting you stay for free up to 4 hours per day, including use of the bathroom!"
Not really. Catastrophes have happened before and they will happen again.
Must man destroy everything?
No. Our species must make the small evolutionary step to change general behavior or die. I am willing to make every ethical change to make that possible and I think I would like to live in that world.
You're a bit of an idealist, which I admire. I don't think the human race will die any time soon, but the same can't be said for countless other species of plants and animals that we are CURRENTLY wiping out. Our environment is getting a little crappier every day. I really hope as a whole we can follow your lead and make some changes. But my expectations are low.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
Maybe, it's just the Earth plus plastic.
Maybe, it's just the Earth plus plastic.
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.