4 ms·

> For example, agriculture. I suppose this is not only an example, but probably the most critical type of productivity when determining how big of a population

> For example, agriculture. I suppose this is not only an example, but probably the most critical type of productivity when determining how big of a population our planet can sustain. > So have we really achieved long-term (> 100 year) productivity improvements in agriculture? If you look back over the past 100 years we definitely have. If you look back over the past 60 years, yields of modern agriculture have tripled. Looking forward will always be speculation. > For example, agriculture. Highly dependent on rapidly disappearing resources Like i.e. dirt. I'm not disputing that such effects are going on in many places. Still, for productivity not only slow down but to actually go down, you need pretty strong effect sizes for such issues. > Water. See "US Drought Monitor". This is a factor that is harder to compensate for by fertilizers and modifications to farming practices. And some locations (possibly the US and even more likely, China) may be hit by this. As temperatures rise, more water is likely to evaporate from the world's oceans, though, and it has to come down somewhere. But that may be elsewhere, such as Central Asia, Canada or the Middle East. I think part of the issue is how willing we are to increase our energy production. In dry, warm climates, solar is likelty to become quite cheap eventually. In other locations, I believe nuclear is our best bet (though wind is maybe more popular with many). If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates and even de-salinated water that is needed for farming. Personally I have relatively high faith that human ingenuity will provide technological answers to most such problems caused by our environment. I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely.

weatherlite 4y ago
> I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely. It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Together with climate change it is only going to increase the likelihood for war. It's kinda already happening in the the Middle East / Africa (I'm saying kinda because it's not the only reason for war...people are messed up...but it's not helping). > If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates That's a big if yes? And even if, is the whole supply chain for modern agriculture sustainable? Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? If it's finite - how long have we got? I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I just started looking at everything through this lens a few months ago ...and it's not going away.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? Nitrogen is about 75% of the earth's atmosphere and potassium and phosphorus make up 2.6 and 0.1% of the Earth's crust, so we have plenty of all of them. To turn them into most of the common fertilizers, we need energy (and water, which is plentiful for this purpose). And atoms don't go away (with the exception of atoms used for nuclear power). All we do is to recombine them. Some of these recombinations release energy (burning fuels) while some require energy as input. Some elements may be very rare and difficult to extract (from sea water, for instance) except when found in deposits of high consentration. But first of all, N, P and K are not among those, and for those who are, extracting them from other sources simply means more energy is needed. >> > If we're able to produce enough energy, > That's a big if yes? There is enough uranium on earth to cover our energy needs for a very long time. Way before that happens, we should be able to use Thorium or fusion. In addition, there are massive amounts of solar energy that goes untapped. The main limitation, even now, is human labor, and the fact that other sources of energy require less effort to leverage. > It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Not completely separate, but it is also not the case that war is a deterministic result of problems surrounding energy and resources. Even if we never expierience severe problems with energy and resoures, war is still possible, simply because some old man wants to be seen as a "great man" before he dies. Conversely, it is quite possible to navigate challenges with resources without war, by learning to co-exist peacefully. Also, there is a third element, namely human and cultural capital. One indicator of this is the "workforce participation rate". One challenge of long lasting prosperity, is that an increasing percentage of the population stop contributing to the economy. Partly because of increased life spans, partly because they have personal savings that allow them to retire and partly because the system may collect inefficiencies and forms of corruption over time. (Just to list a few). Some fraction of the population has the ability to be immensly productive, due to factors such as education, talent, opportunity, motivation, dedication and luck. Others are only marginally productive, while some will produce a lot less than they consume. Generally, the relative frequencies of these groups is a much bigger influence on the affluence of a society than the availability of natural resources. This is linked to the fact that the production and optimal utilization of energy is primarily limited by (qualified) human labor, as stated above.

weatherlite 4y ago

> I have way greater fear that war or similar conflicts may cause us to exterminate each other, or even that some day, AI will take over completely. It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Together with climate change it is only going to increase the likelihood for war. It's kinda already happening in the the Middle East / Africa (I'm saying kinda because it's not the only reason for war...people are messed up...but it's not helping). > If we're able to produce enough energy, we can produce most of the phosphates, nitrates That's a big if yes? And even if, is the whole supply chain for modern agriculture sustainable? Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? If it's finite - how long have we got? I'm not claiming to have all the answers but I just started looking at everything through this lens a few months ago ...and it's not going away.

trashtester 4y ago
> Are all fertilizers and material used renewable or are they coming out of finite earth resources? Nitrogen is about 75% of the earth's atmosphere and potassium and phosphorus make up 2.6 and 0.1% of the Earth's crust, so we have plenty of all of them. To turn them into most of the common fertilizers, we need energy (and water, which is plentiful for this purpose). And atoms don't go away (with the exception of atoms used for nuclear power). All we do is to recombine them. Some of these recombinations release energy (burning fuels) while some require energy as input. Some elements may be very rare and difficult to extract (from sea water, for instance) except when found in deposits of high consentration. But first of all, N, P and K are not among those, and for those who are, extracting them from other sources simply means more energy is needed. >> > If we're able to produce enough energy, > That's a big if yes? There is enough uranium on earth to cover our energy needs for a very long time. Way before that happens, we should be able to use Thorium or fusion. In addition, there are massive amounts of solar energy that goes untapped. The main limitation, even now, is human labor, and the fact that other sources of energy require less effort to leverage. > It's not like the energy/resource crunch is a totally separate problem to war. Not completely separate, but it is also not the case that war is a deterministic result of problems surrounding energy and resources. Even if we never expierience severe problems with energy and resoures, war is still possible, simply because some old man wants to be seen as a "great man" before he dies. Conversely, it is quite possible to navigate challenges with resources without war, by learning to co-exist peacefully. Also, there is a third element, namely human and cultural capital. One indicator of this is the "workforce participation rate". One challenge of long lasting prosperity, is that an increasing percentage of the population stop contributing to the economy. Partly because of increased life spans, partly because they have personal savings that allow them to retire and partly because the system may collect inefficiencies and forms of corruption over time. (Just to list a few). Some fraction of the population has the ability to be immensly productive, due to factors such as education, talent, opportunity, motivation, dedication and luck. Others are only marginally productive, while some will produce a lot less than they consume. Generally, the relative frequencies of these groups is a much bigger influence on the affluence of a society than the availability of natural resources. This is linked to the fact that the production and optimal utilization of energy is primarily limited by (qualified) human labor, as stated above.