8 ms·

It's simultaneously true that infinite growth isn't feasible, and yet true that most predictions on resource depletion haven't been borne out. We can make soil

It's simultaneously true that infinite growth isn't feasible, and yet true that most predictions on resource depletion haven't been borne out. We can make soil more productive, find new ways of creating potable water, create energy out of seemingly nothing... Most of the suffering from limited resources have been a case of artificial scarcity owing to monopolistic control. I don't think it's unduly optimistic to agree with the mindset of "Spaceship Earth":[0] > It is a well-provisioned ship, this on which we sail through space. If the bread and beef above decks seem to grow scarce, we but open a hatch and there is a new supply, of which before we never dreamed. And very great command over the services of others comes to those who as the hatches are opened are permitted to say, "This is mine!" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>been a case of artificial scarcity owing to monopolistic control. Well, that sounds like an excuse. 1.6bn people are living in poverty via the Human Poverty Index (HPI) measurement, which is defined as less than earing $1.50 a day. Worse, if we raise the value to $2.50 a day, then we're talking almost half the population of Earth! Half of every living and breathing human right now is poor on a level that I can't comprehend. Oh we can add more and more excuses like bad government, 'lazy' people, people who should 'move to better jobs', etc but it doesn't make a difference. If the political and economic engines of the world can't keep almost 1/3rd of us out of poverty then its time to consider that maybe we know more about the Earth's carrying capacity today than we did 130 years ago and that you can't just wish post-scarcity into existance nor wish away the effects of human economic activity that ultimately hurts us like climate change as a "Chinese hoax." We probably can continue to add people but we'll just be making larger numbers in each category, mostly poverty and the poor. Hey, I'm doing well because poor countries tend to work for my interests but that's an accident of birth. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to be born into the life of an urban westerner.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > Unfortunately, not everyone gets to be born into the life of an urban westerner. As a Rawlsian, I'm fixated on this very problem, but I'm drawn to solutions that work to tear down the mechanism (in short, open borders) rather than a Malthusian answer (limiting population) that I'm skeptical will do much to end poverty. Open borders, of course, don't help very much if life is unaffordable once you cross that border. And again I advise looking towards Henry George for solutions to this problem.
- stale2002 10y ago
  And 30 years ago, how was life for these 1.6 billion that were in poverty? Answer: it was much much worse. Yes, things are bad right now. But in the past things were worse. And now they are getting better, very quickly. I see no evidence that this trend won't continue.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    The problem with your reasoning is this: http://i.imgur.com/cRzjXWQ.png http://i.imgur.com/cRzjXWQ.png Sure you can point at some changes but you don't know what is causing them and when they're begin to peter off. We do know that a lot of the poverty fixes of late are almost exclusively linked to the fall of communism in Asia. Now they're all on market economies and we still have 1/3rd poverty and 1/2 living with under $2.50 a day. Now we've eliminated communism, now what? The market approach has itself bottomed out and even wealthy states are struggling with late stage capitalism which is extremely low growth and rising unemployment and taxation unable to keep up with entitlements. On of the dirty little secrets of capitalism is that rich countries need poor countries to stay rich. You can't just raise everyone up. Limited resources will always mean uneven distributions, the same way economies don't naturally have an even distribution of money/resources. Also one of the main reasons things are better today is become of liberalism in regards to abortion and the lowered population in especially hopeless areas in the 70s and 80s that led to starvation and resource warfare, thus these people aren't here anymore to pad poverty stats. They're dead. We shouldn't see that as a win for economic prosperity.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      You don't have to look at just the last couple decades. You can look at the last 200 years. Every decade some smart academic makes the same, Malthusian, population bomb, peak oil, or whatever argument. And every decade that person gets proven wrong, for the last 200 years. Is this decade different? Are the Malthusians going to proven right NOW even though they have been wrong every single other time they make these predictions? Maybe. But I think I am going to wait a little while before giving that argument any weight at all. No arguments, no predictions, only evidence. We are in late stage capitalism once living standards stop going up, and they have yet to do that.
knicholes 10y ago
I'd be careful using the term "create energy" and instead opt for "generate energy."
- Retra 10y ago
  Those are synonyms.
  - knicholes 10y ago
    Except for generating energy is converting energy from one form to another where creating energy is impossible. (e.g. Law of Conservation of Energy)
    - Retra 10y ago
      No, "converting energy" is converting energy, and creating energy is generating energy, because those words are synonyms. But this whole point is moot, because when someone "generates energy", what they mean is "generate useable energy" through a process of energy conversion. Even then, conservation of energy doesn't always hold. If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least be correct.
      - knicholes 10y ago
        I am correct. Read the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. "Create energy" is impossible. And what do you mean that conservation of energy doesn't always hold?
        Retra 10y ago
        "Create energy" in this context means "Create usable energy through an energy conversion process." As I stated above. So yes, you are correct, if you're being uncharitable to the flexibility of the English language. >And what do you mean that conservation of energy doesn't always hold? I mean what I said. Conservation of energy is not a law of nature, it's only a local approximation to the Conservation of the value of the Stress-Energy Tensor. Which when manipulated conservatively, can and does result in the creation and destruction of energy.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>been a case of artificial scarcity owing to monopolistic control. Well, that sounds like an excuse. 1.6bn people are living in poverty via the Human Poverty Index (HPI) measurement, which is defined as less than earing $1.50 a day. Worse, if we raise the value to $2.50 a day, then we're talking almost half the population of Earth! Half of every living and breathing human right now is poor on a level that I can't comprehend. Oh we can add more and more excuses like bad government, 'lazy' people, people who should 'move to better jobs', etc but it doesn't make a difference. If the political and economic engines of the world can't keep almost 1/3rd of us out of poverty then its time to consider that maybe we know more about the Earth's carrying capacity today than we did 130 years ago and that you can't just wish post-scarcity into existance nor wish away the effects of human economic activity that ultimately hurts us like climate change as a "Chinese hoax." We probably can continue to add people but we'll just be making larger numbers in each category, mostly poverty and the poor. Hey, I'm doing well because poor countries tend to work for my interests but that's an accident of birth. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to be born into the life of an urban westerner.

bufordsharkley 10y ago
> Unfortunately, not everyone gets to be born into the life of an urban westerner. As a Rawlsian, I'm fixated on this very problem, but I'm drawn to solutions that work to tear down the mechanism (in short, open borders) rather than a Malthusian answer (limiting population) that I'm skeptical will do much to end poverty. Open borders, of course, don't help very much if life is unaffordable once you cross that border. And again I advise looking towards Henry George for solutions to this problem.
stale2002 10y ago
And 30 years ago, how was life for these 1.6 billion that were in poverty? Answer: it was much much worse. Yes, things are bad right now. But in the past things were worse. And now they are getting better, very quickly. I see no evidence that this trend won't continue.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  The problem with your reasoning is this: http://i.imgur.com/cRzjXWQ.png http://i.imgur.com/cRzjXWQ.png Sure you can point at some changes but you don't know what is causing them and when they're begin to peter off. We do know that a lot of the poverty fixes of late are almost exclusively linked to the fall of communism in Asia. Now they're all on market economies and we still have 1/3rd poverty and 1/2 living with under $2.50 a day. Now we've eliminated communism, now what? The market approach has itself bottomed out and even wealthy states are struggling with late stage capitalism which is extremely low growth and rising unemployment and taxation unable to keep up with entitlements. On of the dirty little secrets of capitalism is that rich countries need poor countries to stay rich. You can't just raise everyone up. Limited resources will always mean uneven distributions, the same way economies don't naturally have an even distribution of money/resources. Also one of the main reasons things are better today is become of liberalism in regards to abortion and the lowered population in especially hopeless areas in the 70s and 80s that led to starvation and resource warfare, thus these people aren't here anymore to pad poverty stats. They're dead. We shouldn't see that as a win for economic prosperity.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    You don't have to look at just the last couple decades. You can look at the last 200 years. Every decade some smart academic makes the same, Malthusian, population bomb, peak oil, or whatever argument. And every decade that person gets proven wrong, for the last 200 years. Is this decade different? Are the Malthusians going to proven right NOW even though they have been wrong every single other time they make these predictions? Maybe. But I think I am going to wait a little while before giving that argument any weight at all. No arguments, no predictions, only evidence. We are in late stage capitalism once living standards stop going up, and they have yet to do that.

knicholes 10y ago

I'd be careful using the term "create energy" and instead opt for "generate energy."

Retra 10y ago
Those are synonyms.
- knicholes 10y ago
  Except for generating energy is converting energy from one form to another where creating energy is impossible. (e.g. Law of Conservation of Energy)
  - Retra 10y ago
    No, "converting energy" is converting energy, and creating energy is generating energy, because those words are synonyms. But this whole point is moot, because when someone "generates energy", what they mean is "generate useable energy" through a process of energy conversion. Even then, conservation of energy doesn't always hold. If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least be correct.
    - knicholes 10y ago
      I am correct. Read the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. "Create energy" is impossible. And what do you mean that conservation of energy doesn't always hold?
      - Retra 10y ago
        "Create energy" in this context means "Create usable energy through an energy conversion process." As I stated above. So yes, you are correct, if you're being uncharitable to the flexibility of the English language. >And what do you mean that conservation of energy doesn't always hold? I mean what I said. Conservation of energy is not a law of nature, it's only a local approximation to the Conservation of the value of the Stress-Energy Tensor. Which when manipulated conservatively, can and does result in the creation and destruction of energy.