6 ms·

I would be an interesting addition to clarify what "resources" mean here. A common rebuttal of the Meadows report that I keep reading is "they predicted we wou

I would be an interesting addition to clarify what "resources" mean here. A common rebuttal of the Meadows report that I keep reading is "they predicted we would run out of resources, and we never ran out of anything." Do they mean metals ? Coal ? Oil ? (As I understand it, we _kinda_ ran out of conventional oil, but were able to replace it with shale oil et al... so it's unclear [1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

trod1234 2y ago
They clarified what resources mean in the updates. They also used simplification models which don't account for many of the cascading problems that can't be directly quantified (i.e. dragon king events, debt defaults/ponzi failures, pollution (pfas). There was an austrian report that showed we are following the business as usual approach, and that we have dangerously overshot. Brittle systems lead to unexpected and chaotic failures. Failures in food production, or related logistics; would spell catastrophe since half the population is dependent on peacetime technological production methods.
em500 2y ago
Best to get this straight from the source[1,2]. Resources are detailed from p.54 onward. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheLimitsToGrowth/page/n55/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/TheLimitsToGrowth/page/n55/mode/... [2] https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Illustrations/Limits-to-Growth.pdf https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Illustrat...
roenxi 2y ago
> (As I understand it, we _kinda_ ran out of conventional oil, but were able to replace it with shale oil et al... so it's unclear [1]) That doesn't really change the math. It is a finite resource, the amount consumed keeps going up. There has to be a peak. Growth tends to be to a logarithmic or exponential curve, so adding a huge amount of extra resource doesn't change the date all that much on long timeframes.
- ttoinou 2y ago
  Resources are infinite (Julian Simon). And exponential doesnt mean the peak will be in 20 years. It could be 500 years.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Real resources humanity can access are not infinite (scientists & engineers) and economists can get their assumptions wrong (everyone, including economists). And there is no way our current trend of oil use can be sustained for 500 years. By then our oil use will be negligible compared to what it is today unless something truly bizarre and unforseeable happens.
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      If we make oil from nuclear or solar power using fuel synthesis, we can carry forward indefinitely.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        Yeah but we wouldn't do that. It doesn't make sense to pay the energy conversion costs; it is already more efficient to store power in non-oil batteries.
        Earw0rm 2y ago
        Not true for aviation, where weight and volume are both constraints.
        jvanderbot 2y ago
        For me, scarcity arguments based on "preferences" don't make a ton of sense, but I see your point. I'd give even odds there will always be use cases for burnable fuels, and almost all vehicles use burnable fuels currently. Sure seems a shorter path to just pull CO2 out of the air and keep moving along as we always have, vs electrifying everything.
  - 2y ago
spacebanana7 2y ago
There’s still plenty of conventional oil capacity in West Africa, Iran and Venezuela. None of those places are producing at anything close to max capacity. Nobody really cares (other than the people who live there) because the world has enough shale.
Iridescent_ 2y ago
Shale oil is extremely unreliable, and its producers have barely ever been able to make any margins out of it because the required investments are heavy and constants. Wells reach maturity after months or weeks, and then they need to be replaced. If we have not yet reached peak all oils, then it will probably happen in the coming years.
palmfacehn 2y ago
A good example is the claim that land is an inelastic resource. The counter point is the supply of accessible land worth utilizing is elastic. Improvements in transportation technology open up more land for utilization.

trod1234 2y ago

They clarified what resources mean in the updates. They also used simplification models which don't account for many of the cascading problems that can't be directly quantified (i.e. dragon king events, debt defaults/ponzi failures, pollution (pfas). There was an austrian report that showed we are following the business as usual approach, and that we have dangerously overshot. Brittle systems lead to unexpected and chaotic failures. Failures in food production, or related logistics; would spell catastrophe since half the population is dependent on peacetime technological production methods.

em500 2y ago

Best to get this straight from the source[1,2]. Resources are detailed from p.54 onward. [1] https://archive.org/details/TheLimitsToGrowth/page/n55/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/TheLimitsToGrowth/page/n55/mode/... [2] https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Illustrations/Limits-to-Growth.pdf https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Illustrat...

roenxi 2y ago

> (As I understand it, we _kinda_ ran out of conventional oil, but were able to replace it with shale oil et al... so it's unclear [1]) That doesn't really change the math. It is a finite resource, the amount consumed keeps going up. There has to be a peak. Growth tends to be to a logarithmic or exponential curve, so adding a huge amount of extra resource doesn't change the date all that much on long timeframes.

ttoinou 2y ago
Resources are infinite (Julian Simon). And exponential doesnt mean the peak will be in 20 years. It could be 500 years.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Real resources humanity can access are not infinite (scientists & engineers) and economists can get their assumptions wrong (everyone, including economists). And there is no way our current trend of oil use can be sustained for 500 years. By then our oil use will be negligible compared to what it is today unless something truly bizarre and unforseeable happens.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    If we make oil from nuclear or solar power using fuel synthesis, we can carry forward indefinitely.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Yeah but we wouldn't do that. It doesn't make sense to pay the energy conversion costs; it is already more efficient to store power in non-oil batteries.
      - Earw0rm 2y ago
        Not true for aviation, where weight and volume are both constraints.
      - jvanderbot 2y ago
        For me, scarcity arguments based on "preferences" don't make a ton of sense, but I see your point. I'd give even odds there will always be use cases for burnable fuels, and almost all vehicles use burnable fuels currently. Sure seems a shorter path to just pull CO2 out of the air and keep moving along as we always have, vs electrifying everything.
- 2y ago

spacebanana7 2y ago

There’s still plenty of conventional oil capacity in West Africa, Iran and Venezuela. None of those places are producing at anything close to max capacity. Nobody really cares (other than the people who live there) because the world has enough shale.

Iridescent_ 2y ago

Shale oil is extremely unreliable, and its producers have barely ever been able to make any margins out of it because the required investments are heavy and constants. Wells reach maturity after months or weeks, and then they need to be replaced. If we have not yet reached peak all oils, then it will probably happen in the coming years.

palmfacehn 2y ago

A good example is the claim that land is an inelastic resource. The counter point is the supply of accessible land worth utilizing is elastic. Improvements in transportation technology open up more land for utilization.