9 ms·

Why are we limited to this planets resources exclusively?

rizzom5000 13y ago
I think the answer to that in the part where the parent mentions physics and chemistry. Until we can provably show that resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption, and within some range of feasibility; it's not valid to use the argument that the potential availability of said resources are a solution to the magnification of natural resource depletion on Earth caused by overpopulation.
- julespitt 13y ago
  Resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption provably. Alas, just at astronomical prices presently. I understand that it is rather prudent to presume to act as if we are limited solely to Earth's resources - because we are right now - but to be reflexibly dismissive of space exploration as an avenue to be actively pursued to remedy such issues is simply not constructive.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    Those prices are merely a proxy for the complexity and resources necessary to go and mine off-world resources. We need a highly complex economic and manufacturing system to remain in place for a long period despite increased pressures of resource depletion and overpopulation and the commensurate rise in instability; we need to use huge amounts of resources to create a space program - materials and energy; energy - all of the above requires huge petrochemical inputs which are finite and depleting rapidly. There was only 1 cubic mile of oil in the world and we're half way through it and what's left is being sucked out faster than ever before and is harder to get to (EROEI).
- diminoten 13y ago
  I'm not convinced we can provably show that the resources on Earth aren't capable of sustaining a great many more people, albeit with a significantly different style of living.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    Of course we can. 90% of food production is based on fossil fuel inputs. Fossil fuels flow rates have plateaued and will move to decline. Because of the increased demand of population that decline will be rapid and increase quickly. When that happens massive amounts of people will starve. This will create huge social dislocations which make the maintenance of a complex system capable of space exploration unlikely. But more basically you can add up energy consumption necessary to sustain any basic average standard of living sufficient to also maintain a functioning global economy, multiply it by population and compare it to the NOT proven reserves but net recoverable energy taking into account EROEI and it's not a good number. Google is your friend. Further, this ignores other essentials such as topsoil depletion, fresh water and NPK inputs - NPK inputs are very limited in quantity, depleting rapidly and incredibly energy intensive to recover. Exponential growth can't continue forever in nature.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I disagree with this thinking, because it assumes no innovation, an assumption that is provably wrong, when it comes to humanity.
      - richardjordan 13y ago
        No it doesn't assume no innovation. It's based on the fact that wishing for a magical elixir which will replace our dwindling resources is just that - wishful thinking.
        diminoten 13y ago
        It's not wishful thinking if every time humanity's faced any kind of such challenge, it's succeeded. Inductive reasoning? Sure. But not wishful thinking.
coldtea 13y ago
For the same reason you cannot buy a 300 feet yaught today.

I think the answer to that in the part where the parent mentions physics and chemistry. Until we can provably show that resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption, and within some range of feasibility; it's not valid to use the argument that the potential availability of said resources are a solution to the magnification of natural resource depletion on Earth caused by overpopulation.

julespitt 13y ago
Resources outside of Earth are available for human consumption provably. Alas, just at astronomical prices presently. I understand that it is rather prudent to presume to act as if we are limited solely to Earth's resources - because we are right now - but to be reflexibly dismissive of space exploration as an avenue to be actively pursued to remedy such issues is simply not constructive.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  Those prices are merely a proxy for the complexity and resources necessary to go and mine off-world resources. We need a highly complex economic and manufacturing system to remain in place for a long period despite increased pressures of resource depletion and overpopulation and the commensurate rise in instability; we need to use huge amounts of resources to create a space program - materials and energy; energy - all of the above requires huge petrochemical inputs which are finite and depleting rapidly. There was only 1 cubic mile of oil in the world and we're half way through it and what's left is being sucked out faster than ever before and is harder to get to (EROEI).
diminoten 13y ago
I'm not convinced we can provably show that the resources on Earth aren't capable of sustaining a great many more people, albeit with a significantly different style of living.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  Of course we can. 90% of food production is based on fossil fuel inputs. Fossil fuels flow rates have plateaued and will move to decline. Because of the increased demand of population that decline will be rapid and increase quickly. When that happens massive amounts of people will starve. This will create huge social dislocations which make the maintenance of a complex system capable of space exploration unlikely. But more basically you can add up energy consumption necessary to sustain any basic average standard of living sufficient to also maintain a functioning global economy, multiply it by population and compare it to the NOT proven reserves but net recoverable energy taking into account EROEI and it's not a good number. Google is your friend. Further, this ignores other essentials such as topsoil depletion, fresh water and NPK inputs - NPK inputs are very limited in quantity, depleting rapidly and incredibly energy intensive to recover. Exponential growth can't continue forever in nature.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I disagree with this thinking, because it assumes no innovation, an assumption that is provably wrong, when it comes to humanity.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      No it doesn't assume no innovation. It's based on the fact that wishing for a magical elixir which will replace our dwindling resources is just that - wishful thinking.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        It's not wishful thinking if every time humanity's faced any kind of such challenge, it's succeeded. Inductive reasoning? Sure. But not wishful thinking.

coldtea 13y ago

For the same reason you cannot buy a 300 feet yaught today.