4 ms·

> Humans don’t just extract from a fixed set of resources, but can create new resources through invention. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but that sounds like no

by shoo 11y ago

> Humans don’t just extract from a fixed set of resources, but can create new resources through invention. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but that sounds like nonsense. Sure, humans invent stuff, but they don't invent the resources. They invent new ways to access previously inaccessible resources, or extract accessible resources more efficiently. But they don't magic more resources into being.

Confusion 11y ago
Nothing is intrinsically a 'resource'. Something becomes a resource when it can be used to further some human activity. Iron wasn't a resource until iron forging was invented. Without humans, no resources exist.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  But the iron was already there before we declared it something useful. Ants use 'resources', so do bacteria so without humans resources definitely do exist and are being used actively, whether we declare something to be a resource to us or not does not change the fact that it was a resource before our wandering eye fell on it. Asteroids are a nice example. They're 'untapped resources', objects we one day may use as resources but which for now just sit there because we haven't found a way to make tapping that resource cost efficient.
  - Confusion 11y ago
    Fine: nothing is intrinsically a resource. Nutrients weren't a resource before some self replicating process started using it for some purpose, probably fairly directly related to replication. And iron ore still wasn't a resource until humans came along and invented forging. The term 'resource' does not describe the natural state of something. It describes a relationship between things: something is a resource for some goal(s), by some entity(ies). The relationship did not exist when the other party was not in that relationship, for instance because the other party did not exist. Thinking new resources cannot come into existence is making a category mistake, thinking whether something is a resource is absolute, intrinsic, independent of context.
personjerry 11y ago
Is there any practical difference? We can't create matter, if that's what you're saying. But we can learn to transform or interpret previously useless things as very useful resources. For example, flint was just another valueless stone before we realized we could make fire with it, or uranium might've just been another stone before we discovered nuclear sciences. In that sense, we can indeed "create" new resources.
Mz 11y ago
Well, we don't create matter. But, for example, new farming techniques do increase actual food supplies. Food is an essential resource. How much of it exists is not arbitrary and can be significantly influenced by human behavior, but we have to have additional resources, such as ideas and tools, to leverage the existing resources, such as soil and stuff that might enhance it, into something more.

by shoo 11y ago

Confusion 11y ago

Nothing is intrinsically a 'resource'. Something becomes a resource when it can be used to further some human activity. Iron wasn't a resource until iron forging was invented. Without humans, no resources exist.

jacquesm 11y ago
But the iron was already there before we declared it something useful. Ants use 'resources', so do bacteria so without humans resources definitely do exist and are being used actively, whether we declare something to be a resource to us or not does not change the fact that it was a resource before our wandering eye fell on it. Asteroids are a nice example. They're 'untapped resources', objects we one day may use as resources but which for now just sit there because we haven't found a way to make tapping that resource cost efficient.
- Confusion 11y ago
  Fine: nothing is intrinsically a resource. Nutrients weren't a resource before some self replicating process started using it for some purpose, probably fairly directly related to replication. And iron ore still wasn't a resource until humans came along and invented forging. The term 'resource' does not describe the natural state of something. It describes a relationship between things: something is a resource for some goal(s), by some entity(ies). The relationship did not exist when the other party was not in that relationship, for instance because the other party did not exist. Thinking new resources cannot come into existence is making a category mistake, thinking whether something is a resource is absolute, intrinsic, independent of context.

personjerry 11y ago

Is there any practical difference? We can't create matter, if that's what you're saying. But we can learn to transform or interpret previously useless things as very useful resources. For example, flint was just another valueless stone before we realized we could make fire with it, or uranium might've just been another stone before we discovered nuclear sciences. In that sense, we can indeed "create" new resources.

Mz 11y ago

Well, we don't create matter. But, for example, new farming techniques do increase actual food supplies. Food is an essential resource. How much of it exists is not arbitrary and can be significantly influenced by human behavior, but we have to have additional resources, such as ideas and tools, to leverage the existing resources, such as soil and stuff that might enhance it, into something more.