4 ms·

That degree of pedantry doesn't lead to useful analysis, though, especially since most of those factors don't end up weighing in to the human consequences, whic

That degree of pedantry doesn't lead to useful analysis, though, especially since most of those factors don't end up weighing in to the human consequences, which are what are being considered. "The universe is a zero-sum system" is a true statement, but utterly useless - a tautology that has no relevance to the discussion.

neonological 6y ago
I highly disagree with this. It may seem to you what I'm saying is pedantic but it is not. The entire culture of the United States from all the art, to all the technology, to all the food to all the music is sustained by this same energy. It is not sustainable for everyone in the world to use the same amount of energy that is used by the United States. This is literally the definition of zero sum. In fact it is well known that entire civilizations have fallen because they've used up all available energy reservoirs. The most famous example is the Rapa Nui people on Easter Island. Easter Island collapsed because the situation was not only zero sum but even negative as high entropy energy is not useful to any participant in the game. What people don't realize is that the economy is limited by physical actuality. It is not simply supply, demand and your limitless "imagination" on what you can potentially deem as "valuable". Supply and demand alone is a short sighted measure. The better metric for intrinsic value must include energy/entropy in the equation. There is a limit and that limit practically effects everything around you.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy. Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy. The amount of energy available on just our planet is unfathomably large (e=mc2). The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant. We could run the entire world for millions of years just on nuclear material filtered from sea water. And that is just using current nuclear technology. We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines.
  - neonological 6y ago
    >No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy. What available energy means is energy "available" for extraction. Not total energy that exists in the earth. >Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy. This is just word play. You know what I mean. But we can still play the game if you want. Basically if the civilization can't extract energy then the energy isn't "available." That's what the word available means. > The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant. Uh no. If we replaced all current world power with copies nuclear plants running in the US we'd be out of nuclear resources in a year. With breeder reactors and ocean water we have about 60,000 years available. A far cry from "millions of years" If nuclear power becomes this common and available in our lifetimes then yes energy can be in a practical sense unlimited and negligible foot note in the economic equation. However this power is not yet "available" (keyword) so until then energy is a huge part of the economic equation. >We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines. You're talking about potential and things that are currently unavailable. I'm talking about history, the status quo and "available energy." So we're not at odds here, just talking about different things.
    - j4yav 6y ago
      Nuclear power becoming common is a choice though, it's not that we don't know how. Isn't in that sense it's already available if needed, so we've already reached the tipping point where this line of reasoning is no longer relevant?
      - neonological 6y ago
        Nuclear power has a bunch of controversy and politics behind it. It's not clear whether it will be the future. The existence of nuclear power doesn't make the energy variable negligble. Energy is still a huge limited resource in our world because of this. Why would governments and scientists spend so much money on Fusion if Nuclear was the definitive answer? It doesn't matter. Whatever your stance is on the topic you can't change the fact that there exists huge political opposition against Nuclear power. The political opposition if anything makes the line of reasoning completely relevant.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > It is not sustainable for everyone in the world to use the same amount of energy that is used by the United States. This is literally the definition of zero sum. It's worth pointing out that the energy consumption of the US (and other developed economies) per capita has been decreasing for decades[0], and, moreover, the World Energy Council predicted that global demand for energy will peak in 2030.[1] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Primary-Energy-consumption-per-capita-for-Canada-China-European-Union-United_fig3_330623396 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Primary-Energy-con... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/10/global-demand-for-energy-will-peak-in-2030-says-world-energy-council https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/10/global-dema...
  - neonological 6y ago
    Yeah that's a good thing. Hopefully what I said will no longer be true in the future.

neonological 6y ago

I highly disagree with this. It may seem to you what I'm saying is pedantic but it is not. The entire culture of the United States from all the art, to all the technology, to all the food to all the music is sustained by this same energy. It is not sustainable for everyone in the world to use the same amount of energy that is used by the United States. This is literally the definition of zero sum. In fact it is well known that entire civilizations have fallen because they've used up all available energy reservoirs. The most famous example is the Rapa Nui people on Easter Island. Easter Island collapsed because the situation was not only zero sum but even negative as high entropy energy is not useful to any participant in the game. What people don't realize is that the economy is limited by physical actuality. It is not simply supply, demand and your limitless "imagination" on what you can potentially deem as "valuable". Supply and demand alone is a short sighted measure. The better metric for intrinsic value must include energy/entropy in the equation. There is a limit and that limit practically effects everything around you.

jjeaff 6y ago
No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy. Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy. The amount of energy available on just our planet is unfathomably large (e=mc2). The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant. We could run the entire world for millions of years just on nuclear material filtered from sea water. And that is just using current nuclear technology. We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines.
- neonological 6y ago
  >No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy. What available energy means is energy "available" for extraction. Not total energy that exists in the earth. >Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy. This is just word play. You know what I mean. But we can still play the game if you want. Basically if the civilization can't extract energy then the energy isn't "available." That's what the word available means. > The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant. Uh no. If we replaced all current world power with copies nuclear plants running in the US we'd be out of nuclear resources in a year. With breeder reactors and ocean water we have about 60,000 years available. A far cry from "millions of years" If nuclear power becomes this common and available in our lifetimes then yes energy can be in a practical sense unlimited and negligible foot note in the economic equation. However this power is not yet "available" (keyword) so until then energy is a huge part of the economic equation. >We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines. You're talking about potential and things that are currently unavailable. I'm talking about history, the status quo and "available energy." So we're not at odds here, just talking about different things.
  - j4yav 6y ago
    Nuclear power becoming common is a choice though, it's not that we don't know how. Isn't in that sense it's already available if needed, so we've already reached the tipping point where this line of reasoning is no longer relevant?
    - neonological 6y ago
      Nuclear power has a bunch of controversy and politics behind it. It's not clear whether it will be the future. The existence of nuclear power doesn't make the energy variable negligble. Energy is still a huge limited resource in our world because of this. Why would governments and scientists spend so much money on Fusion if Nuclear was the definitive answer? It doesn't matter. Whatever your stance is on the topic you can't change the fact that there exists huge political opposition against Nuclear power. The political opposition if anything makes the line of reasoning completely relevant.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> It is not sustainable for everyone in the world to use the same amount of energy that is used by the United States. This is literally the definition of zero sum. It's worth pointing out that the energy consumption of the US (and other developed economies) per capita has been decreasing for decades[0], and, moreover, the World Energy Council predicted that global demand for energy will peak in 2030.[1] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Primary-Energy-consumption-per-capita-for-Canada-China-European-Union-United_fig3_330623396 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Primary-Energy-con... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/10/global-demand-for-energy-will-peak-in-2030-says-world-energy-council https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/10/global-dema...
- neonological 6y ago
  Yeah that's a good thing. Hopefully what I said will no longer be true in the future.