4 ms·

So which raw materials are actually necessary for human life? What happens when one area runs out? What is the rate limit of extraction in any given area? Shoul

So which raw materials are actually necessary for human life? What happens when one area runs out? What is the rate limit of extraction in any given area? Should we consider other life besides human to be necessary? What do they need? I don't understand how doctors and farmers create wealth. A farmer is taking up a massive amount of land, that other species may need. A doctor helps people recover from illness and prevent illness, is it then just the extension of human life that we consider 'wealth'?

Bakary 6y ago
>So which raw materials are actually necessary for human life? What happens when one area runs out? What is the rate limit of extraction in any given area? Should we consider other life besides human to be necessary? What do they need? These are all questions that we will have to determine the answer to in the coming decades. In fact, since technology changes at a rapid pace, we might not even have the beginning of an idea of what's possible right now, or whether collapse is inevitable. That said, we already have the technical capacities to house, feed, and clothe everyone. However, as far as I can see, various aspects of our society and nature and the inertia of history prevent us from doing so or even collectively wanting to do so. It looks as though the only way to get past that roadblock would be dramatically improved production and energy capabilities (including long-term sustainability) to the point where high living standards would happen as a secondary effect (as they have for our current living standards) >I don't understand how doctors and farmers create wealth. A farmer is taking up a massive amount of land, that other species may need. A doctor helps people recover from illness and prevent illness, is it then just the extension of human life that we consider 'wealth'? Depends how broadly you want to define wealth, but it's just an unnecessary semantic detail. Its boundaries are subject to debate, but even people who only define it according to the narrow sense of monetary exchange and transactions still implicitly recognize that these transactions are the means to an end. The nature of that end is also debatable, but most humans would agree that it involves a long and healthy life where your human needs are met for the most part. The precise delineation can vary from one culture to another, but these sort of instinctive constants remain. By definition, the idea of wealth and the notion of value will have to be human-centric, since other species don't have the possibility to plan their own continued existence or make a conscious decision to value some things over others. Even the supposedly altruistic route of attributing rights to other species is subject to this. Humans remain the only conscious guarantors of those rights, and the energy they expend protecting those species and arguing in their favor is a result of human needs that consider the environment and its protection as either indirectly or inherently valuable.

Bakary 6y ago

>So which raw materials are actually necessary for human life? What happens when one area runs out? What is the rate limit of extraction in any given area? Should we consider other life besides human to be necessary? What do they need? These are all questions that we will have to determine the answer to in the coming decades. In fact, since technology changes at a rapid pace, we might not even have the beginning of an idea of what's possible right now, or whether collapse is inevitable. That said, we already have the technical capacities to house, feed, and clothe everyone. However, as far as I can see, various aspects of our society and nature and the inertia of history prevent us from doing so or even collectively wanting to do so. It looks as though the only way to get past that roadblock would be dramatically improved production and energy capabilities (including long-term sustainability) to the point where high living standards would happen as a secondary effect (as they have for our current living standards) >I don't understand how doctors and farmers create wealth. A farmer is taking up a massive amount of land, that other species may need. A doctor helps people recover from illness and prevent illness, is it then just the extension of human life that we consider 'wealth'? Depends how broadly you want to define wealth, but it's just an unnecessary semantic detail. Its boundaries are subject to debate, but even people who only define it according to the narrow sense of monetary exchange and transactions still implicitly recognize that these transactions are the means to an end. The nature of that end is also debatable, but most humans would agree that it involves a long and healthy life where your human needs are met for the most part. The precise delineation can vary from one culture to another, but these sort of instinctive constants remain. By definition, the idea of wealth and the notion of value will have to be human-centric, since other species don't have the possibility to plan their own continued existence or make a conscious decision to value some things over others. Even the supposedly altruistic route of attributing rights to other species is subject to this. Humans remain the only conscious guarantors of those rights, and the energy they expend protecting those species and arguing in their favor is a result of human needs that consider the environment and its protection as either indirectly or inherently valuable.