5 ms·

> At some point, people are going to have to use vastly less resources That's some claim. Care to back it up?

grecy 11y ago
> That's some claim. Care to back it up? Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few. Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  ... while at the same time tapping into vast new resources, and making great strides to end poverty and disease, while sending life expectancy and living conditions soaring in most of the world. World population is trending towards stable, and population growth in developed countries is trending downwards. tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks-ep-chart-56-evolution-of-socialist-strategies.gif http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks... Edited: to clarify, I think the 'need to use less resources' meme originates from the bottom-left of the flowchart, left-environmentalism. It's wrong. Edited: here come the downvotes ... can we at least make an attempt to discuss this, instead of just disagreeing by downvoting???
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Malthus wasn't wrong, he was off, because we've found some cheap energy source to stave off disaster.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Malthus was wrong, extraordinarily so. His mistake at its root was: humans as a creative, efficient, effective problem solving species. There isn't an example yet where humans have failed to think their way out of a massive, species sized problem. And as a whole sum we're getting better at solving problems, faster, rather than worse. There will always be human created solutions to stave off every big disaster. There isn't a realistic example of an inbound disaster that we can't obviously take care of with our brains, or for which there aren't already solutions. We long since have invented multiple cheap energy sources that will continue to stave off 'disaster.' Nuclear, solar, wind - those alone will take care of the future, even if we don't figure out more advanced energy production. In 50 years, solar will be extraordinarily cheap; it already is cost effective. The US could spend a trillion dollars and put another 500 nuclear reactors into place and guarantee our energy security for another hundred years (or perpetually if the plants continued to be used). We've already solved the mess of nuclear waste, now it's merely a matter of time to deploy the technology - less than 20 years. And yes, even with $7 billion plants, nuclear is still cheap energy, and it's going to get even cheaper.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  Look, I'm no fan of what we're doing to the environment, but none of the problems you bring up would actually result in a need to scale back consumption (as in a physical inability to continue). Wood is one building material among many. Extinct species and overfished oceans don't impede our ability to raise animals for consumption (which is where a vast majority of the meat we consume comes from). Ditto farming. Pollution can be (is) filtered from water sources at miniscule cost. Energy production is cheap and diversified, even beyond fossil fuels (nuclear and increasingly practical wind&solar). Water can be desalinated and pumped long distances for a pittance (I'm speaking in absolute terms here.) Costs might fluctuate a bit, we might take the usual tragedies of the commons to horrible extremes that significantly mess with the planet and make it significantly less nice to live on, but I have yet to see an argument for unsustainability that didn't rely on either silly extrapolations or silly assumptions about our inability to adapt. If you've actually got one I'd love to see it -- more ammunition in the fight for the environment -- but I have to say I've seen a lot of bad arguments along these lines and by this point I honestly expect more of the same.
- ars 11y ago
  > Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff. Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them. So there isn't a need to use less, instead you simply create more. Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them. Resources aren't created equal. We cut down trees that regulate air, humidity and temperature on the planet and replace them with smartphones, that mostly lie unused on benches and in warehouses in Shenzhen. > Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again. The key here is that "little effort". Ignoring the fact that we neither can (because of tech level) nor want (because of market economy) recreate the important resources we're depleting, you absolutely can use up energy from a practical standpoint. Yes, total energy is conserved, but as it reaches higher and higher entropy levels, it becomes less and less usable, until it's just thermal waste.

grecy 11y ago

> That's some claim. Care to back it up? Ah, humans have deforested vast swaths of the earth, hunted hundreds of species of animals to extinction, severely over fished the oceans, polluted a huge amount of fresh water, just to name a few. Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
... while at the same time tapping into vast new resources, and making great strides to end poverty and disease, while sending life expectancy and living conditions soaring in most of the world. World population is trending towards stable, and population growth in developed countries is trending downwards. tl;dr: Malthus was wrong. Slightly more detailed explanation of the cultural phenomenon behind the assumption you're citing: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks-ep-chart-56-evolution-of-socialist-strategies.gif http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/hicks... Edited: to clarify, I think the 'need to use less resources' meme originates from the bottom-left of the flowchart, left-environmentalism. It's wrong. Edited: here come the downvotes ... can we at least make an attempt to discuss this, instead of just disagreeing by downvoting???
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Malthus wasn't wrong, he was off, because we've found some cheap energy source to stave off disaster.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Malthus was wrong, extraordinarily so. His mistake at its root was: humans as a creative, efficient, effective problem solving species. There isn't an example yet where humans have failed to think their way out of a massive, species sized problem. And as a whole sum we're getting better at solving problems, faster, rather than worse. There will always be human created solutions to stave off every big disaster. There isn't a realistic example of an inbound disaster that we can't obviously take care of with our brains, or for which there aren't already solutions. We long since have invented multiple cheap energy sources that will continue to stave off 'disaster.' Nuclear, solar, wind - those alone will take care of the future, even if we don't figure out more advanced energy production. In 50 years, solar will be extraordinarily cheap; it already is cost effective. The US could spend a trillion dollars and put another 500 nuclear reactors into place and guarantee our energy security for another hundred years (or perpetually if the plants continued to be used). We've already solved the mess of nuclear waste, now it's merely a matter of time to deploy the technology - less than 20 years. And yes, even with $7 billion plants, nuclear is still cheap energy, and it's going to get even cheaper.
jjoonathan 11y ago
Look, I'm no fan of what we're doing to the environment, but none of the problems you bring up would actually result in a need to scale back consumption (as in a physical inability to continue). Wood is one building material among many. Extinct species and overfished oceans don't impede our ability to raise animals for consumption (which is where a vast majority of the meat we consume comes from). Ditto farming. Pollution can be (is) filtered from water sources at miniscule cost. Energy production is cheap and diversified, even beyond fossil fuels (nuclear and increasingly practical wind&solar). Water can be desalinated and pumped long distances for a pittance (I'm speaking in absolute terms here.) Costs might fluctuate a bit, we might take the usual tragedies of the commons to horrible extremes that significantly mess with the planet and make it significantly less nice to live on, but I have yet to see an argument for unsustainability that didn't rely on either silly extrapolations or silly assumptions about our inability to adapt. If you've actually got one I'd love to see it -- more ammunition in the fight for the environment -- but I have to say I've seen a lot of bad arguments along these lines and by this point I honestly expect more of the same.
ars 11y ago
> Is it even a discussion that humans need to use less resources? I thought this was all widely accepted basic stuff. Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them. So there isn't a need to use less, instead you simply create more. Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Hardly. Your mistake is that unlike animals humans don't [just] consume resources, they create them. Resources aren't created equal. We cut down trees that regulate air, humidity and temperature on the planet and replace them with smartphones, that mostly lie unused on benches and in warehouses in Shenzhen. > Don't forget that it's not possible to "use up" matter - it's always still there, a little effort and you can use it again. The key here is that "little effort". Ignoring the fact that we neither can (because of tech level) nor want (because of market economy) recreate the important resources we're depleting, you absolutely can use up energy from a practical standpoint. Yes, total energy is conserved, but as it reaches higher and higher entropy levels, it becomes less and less usable, until it's just thermal waste.