Why is it that people can say that resources are limited? A resource is something that we know how to use. Before 1840 or so, petroleum was not a resource, it was just something that polluted when it leaked out of the ground. Whale oil was used - obviously that was limited, but then petroleum became useful. Before 1900 or so, gasoline was a waste product of petroleum refining - kerosene was used.
Before nuclear power was developed, we didn't use uranium for anything - now we can generate power from it. If nuclear power were not demonized by environmentalists, and we built nuclear power plants, then electricity would be too cheap to meter. And we can generate nuclear power from thorium, which isn't useful for building bombs.
Also, the idea that we are destroying the environment (less clean air and water), is typical environmentalist nonsense. Any decent measure of the state of the environment shows tremendous progress. For example, there are about 1% of the deaths from climate disasters (hurricanes, etc) as there were 100 - 120 years ago.
The de-growth people are believers in sumptuary laws. Just as in ancient times, when only royalty was allowed to wear purple, today degrowthers don't believe that the average deplorable should be able to have all the conveniences that plentiful energy allows. Read John Tierney's piece in City JournalL https://www.city-journal.org/needless-panic-over-disposable-plastic
The Perverse Panic over Plastic: The campaign against disposable bags and other products is harming the planet and the public. John Tierney Winter 2020
Remember Paul Ehrlich's quote: In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
One final point: The GREEN Revolution (pioneered by Norman Borlaug) enabled more food to be grown on less land. This was great for wildlife. But this was OPPOSED by environmentalists and degrowjhers. But disallowing these modern seeds and farming methods would lead to more land being put under cultivation to grow needed food, and less habitat for wild species, which is what environmentalists would supposedly be against (not really, since they have no problem taking up land for wind farms and solar generation, which have a huge need for land, unlike nuclear power),
I noticed the part where you define resources. My understanding does not hinge on that definition, on whether we know how to use it or not. I am thinking of everything the earth provides. It's finite.
Some people are saying we are running out of sand! Crazy. :-)
The degrowth movement, last time I checked, was a couple of guys financed by Richard Heinberg. I hung out on their blog, asking them how they propose to implement their longings. No clue.
Nevertheless, infinite econ growth is nonsense. There are limits to what the planet can provide. Why does mainstream econ lie about it? :-)
Really limits to growth? Why would that be? 100 years ago no one would have predicted the massive growth entailed in the use of sand (silicone) in powering economic advancement. Modern growth is characterized by less use of minerals and energy to generate increased prosperity. The future will likely involve virtual prosperity we cannot even imagine.
I haven't seen anything on the financing of the de-growth movement; I tend to take people at face value on their beliefs, although of course there could be ulterior motives. Even still, I'd argue that the best way to combat those beliefs is data and factual findings that show the contrary.
The planet does have limited resources to some extent, but I think we often forget about the ultimate resource-- human innovation, more on that topic for another week :D
Well, yes. Of course, human innovation is unlimited. Fully agreed.
Nevertheless. Human innovation is entirely dependent on (limited) food, air and water,. In other words, on the limited living planet. Or do you see it differently?
The resources might be limited, but we have adjusted what resources we need in which capacity. For instance, coal is used way less than it was previously; as EVs have become more popular, we have decreased our demand for oil in some regards. People have shifted from real diamonds to lab-grown, making the demand for diamonds less. So given historical trends in how the resources we used to need have changed, I think it's almost next to impossible to know to what extent this can happen going forward. But history tells us that we can expect there to be innovations, which makes us 1) be able to use the resources we currently use more efficiently; and 2) completely change the mix of resources we use/no longer use.
Look. It's not that the resources MIGHT be limited, it's that they ACTUALLY ARE limited. The living planet is finite, period. No weasel words, please!
Now to your argument. Yes, substitutions are the wise way to go, of course. But there is no substitution for fertile untoxified land, for clean air and clean water. And we are destroying those at a fast clip.
Why won't you just come out and say that yes, the living planet is finite? And start from there?
Why is it that people can say that resources are limited? A resource is something that we know how to use. Before 1840 or so, petroleum was not a resource, it was just something that polluted when it leaked out of the ground. Whale oil was used - obviously that was limited, but then petroleum became useful. Before 1900 or so, gasoline was a waste product of petroleum refining - kerosene was used.
Before nuclear power was developed, we didn't use uranium for anything - now we can generate power from it. If nuclear power were not demonized by environmentalists, and we built nuclear power plants, then electricity would be too cheap to meter. And we can generate nuclear power from thorium, which isn't useful for building bombs.
Also, the idea that we are destroying the environment (less clean air and water), is typical environmentalist nonsense. Any decent measure of the state of the environment shows tremendous progress. For example, there are about 1% of the deaths from climate disasters (hurricanes, etc) as there were 100 - 120 years ago.
The de-growth people are believers in sumptuary laws. Just as in ancient times, when only royalty was allowed to wear purple, today degrowthers don't believe that the average deplorable should be able to have all the conveniences that plentiful energy allows. Read John Tierney's piece in City JournalL https://www.city-journal.org/needless-panic-over-disposable-plastic
The Perverse Panic over Plastic: The campaign against disposable bags and other products is harming the planet and the public. John Tierney Winter 2020
Remember Paul Ehrlich's quote: In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
One final point: The GREEN Revolution (pioneered by Norman Borlaug) enabled more food to be grown on less land. This was great for wildlife. But this was OPPOSED by environmentalists and degrowjhers. But disallowing these modern seeds and farming methods would lead to more land being put under cultivation to grow needed food, and less habitat for wild species, which is what environmentalists would supposedly be against (not really, since they have no problem taking up land for wind farms and solar generation, which have a huge need for land, unlike nuclear power),
I noticed the part where you define resources. My understanding does not hinge on that definition, on whether we know how to use it or not. I am thinking of everything the earth provides. It's finite.
Some people are saying we are running out of sand! Crazy. :-)
The green types went off the rails long ago, I don't dispute that.
I don't dispute substitutions.
I don't dispute better/cleverer use of what the planet provides.
I dispute that infinite economic growth is possible on a finite planet.
The degrowth movement, last time I checked, was a couple of guys financed by Richard Heinberg. I hung out on their blog, asking them how they propose to implement their longings. No clue.
Nevertheless, infinite econ growth is nonsense. There are limits to what the planet can provide. Why does mainstream econ lie about it? :-)
Really limits to growth? Why would that be? 100 years ago no one would have predicted the massive growth entailed in the use of sand (silicone) in powering economic advancement. Modern growth is characterized by less use of minerals and energy to generate increased prosperity. The future will likely involve virtual prosperity we cannot even imagine.
That would be nice, though the actual (non-virtual) ;trends are worrying.
Nevertheless, the planet is limited. I thought that was painfully obvious by now.
I haven't seen anything on the financing of the de-growth movement; I tend to take people at face value on their beliefs, although of course there could be ulterior motives. Even still, I'd argue that the best way to combat those beliefs is data and factual findings that show the contrary.
The planet does have limited resources to some extent, but I think we often forget about the ultimate resource-- human innovation, more on that topic for another week :D
Well, yes. Of course, human innovation is unlimited. Fully agreed.
Nevertheless. Human innovation is entirely dependent on (limited) food, air and water,. In other words, on the limited living planet. Or do you see it differently?
The resources might be limited, but we have adjusted what resources we need in which capacity. For instance, coal is used way less than it was previously; as EVs have become more popular, we have decreased our demand for oil in some regards. People have shifted from real diamonds to lab-grown, making the demand for diamonds less. So given historical trends in how the resources we used to need have changed, I think it's almost next to impossible to know to what extent this can happen going forward. But history tells us that we can expect there to be innovations, which makes us 1) be able to use the resources we currently use more efficiently; and 2) completely change the mix of resources we use/no longer use.
Look. It's not that the resources MIGHT be limited, it's that they ACTUALLY ARE limited. The living planet is finite, period. No weasel words, please!
Now to your argument. Yes, substitutions are the wise way to go, of course. But there is no substitution for fertile untoxified land, for clean air and clean water. And we are destroying those at a fast clip.
Why won't you just come out and say that yes, the living planet is finite? And start from there?