
Why most resources don't run out - troystribling
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-most-resources-don%27t-run-out.aspx
======
jal278
There's a seemingly reasonable fallacy embedded in the argument that so far
technology has been able to dig us out of the holes that it itself digs: That
past performance is indicative of the future. Of course, the past often does
predict the future -- yet, we can't bank on it, because there are sometimes
qualitative shifts, and exceptions.

The problem with hoping that technology will solve climate change before it
happens, is that we're gambling something we can't afford to lose. So, it may
well be the case that we do solve the problem -- but what if we don't? There
are limits to technology, after all.

To me, the danger in placing excessive faith in technology is that it can
bypass our critical thinking. For example, right now our own technology
(nuclear weapons, or biological weapons as that technology develops) is the
greatest threat to humanity's existence. So while technology is a great thing,
it may well be our species undoing rather than its savior -- at least until
(if) we survive long enough to colonize other planets or enhance our own
morality such that we can handle the responsibility our technology demands.

~~~
jerf
If there is a subtle fallacy embedded in the idea that innovation will always
save us, there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed
because we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no
changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the
current static snapshot of the world. Looking back over the past couple of
hundred years of us overcoming challenge after challenge, and drawing the
conclusion that it is absolutely certain that can't happen more, is simply an
absurd position to take on a rational basis.

If you do not wish to completely flip to the "everything's going to be peachy
keen!" side, hey, fine. I'm not even sure anyone's really advocating that. But
trying to salvage the panicky pure-ecologist view is in my mind frankly
irrational. The one guarantee in life is change, and projecting out the
present conditions into the indefinite future as a static precondition is
always wrong. Mind you, it may be wrong because the nuclear exchange of 2021
wipes out 98% of humanity and not because the Happy Fun Solar Company solved
all world energy problems in 2025, but still, change is inevitable. And what's
going forth into the future is not mindless automata who passively experience
challenges and fall over dead at a feather's push... what's going forward into
the future are several billion human beings, which for all their faults, are
still the cleverest things in the Universe we know about.

By the way, trying to mitigate the fact we've overcome challenges by pointing
out that there are still challenges in the world is just another way to try to
dodge dealing with the fact that we _have_ overcome challenges. I absolutely,
positively guarantee you that if we survive another 20 years, that there will
be even _more_ challenges. I forsee no day coming where the human race can
just sit back and declare total victory over challenges.

~~~
orthecreedence
> there's a blatant fallacy in the idea that we're inevitably doomed because
> we're absolutely guaranteed to continue on our current course with no
> changes until we consume all the resources that we are consuming in the
> current static snapshot of the world

Perhaps, but it's already getting to the point of "too little, too late" as
far as convincing people climate change exists, not to mention our current
infrastructure is heavily invested in ignoring climate change. So continuing
on our current course is bad, yes, but deviating at this point will only delay
the inevitable. There are a number of cascading changes set in motion already.

And while I don't think humanity will be extincted by climate change, we'll
certainly get our "hair mussed." As in, large amounts of drought/flood
displacing millions of people into already crowded areas that don't have the
infrastructure to support the influx...meaning plagues, food/water shortages,
etc.

And to say, "technology will find a way to fix it!" is the bigger fallacy. We
should be ready for a nice big shitstorm 50-100 years from now that no amount
of scientists or computers can fix. After all, as much as we like to think of
ourselves as little gods, we're really just apes with shiny toys. We've made
it this far, but when you think about it, we've been through one ice age, a
handful of plagues, and zero mass-extinctions. Not a big list. We're a blip on
the geological radar, and we can disappear as fast as we came. We need to
remember this.

~~~
ars
> we're really just apes with shiny toys

No, we are incredibly intelligent people who have invented amazing things.

50-100 years from now climate change will be viewed the way nuclear winter is
viewed now.

In the language of the article you are an ecologist because you believe people
will accept changes without doing anything about them.

~~~
jal278
We surely have invented amazing things -- and we are intelligent -- and yet
our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.

These brains of ours really are not well-suited for considering really-long-
term abstract uncertain problems that require altruism to solve (e.g. the
environment as the tragedy of the commons, or solid agreements between nations
to dismantle nuclear arms).

The thing is, it is hard to be objective about our limitations as a species:
being that we are a member of our species we are each a bit biased. Overcoming
that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a selfish
tribalistic society, is challenging.

Note that I mean selfish in the larger sense -- that generally we devalue
human lives with increasing distance from our own birthplace, country, class,
time, etc.

~~~
ars
See, when you say "shiny toy" you imply someone gave you the toy - you use it,
but can't make it and don't know how it works. But we invented all we have, so
we can rightfully be proud of it.

(I am aware you didn't invent that saying (I don't know who did), but you used
it without thinking about how stupid of a saying it actually is.)

> and yet our brains aren't that far removed from our ape ancestors.

OK, that's just so ridiculous as to verge on absurd. Our brains are so far
removed from an ape that you wouldn't know we were related if all you could
observe were actions (rather than form and shape).

> are not well-suited for considering really-long-term abstract uncertain
> problems that require altruism to solve (e.g. the environment as the tragedy
> of the commons

Any yet somehow we have solved that over and over. And humans are the most
altruistic of all the species - witness how we rush to help when there is a
disaster, or how much charity we give - or that we invented of concept of
charity in the first place!

> or solid agreements between nations to dismantle nuclear arms).

We haven't done that because we don't want to do that, not because we can't.
And we don't want to for very good, thought out reasons, not because of some
brain lack. You might disagree on the reasons themself, but you can't claim
there were no reasons.

> Overcoming that bias, to see humanity in its current state as basically a
> selfish tribalistic society, is challenging.

And presumably you have done so? And you have one of these flawed brains? You
seem to have a contradiction here. Not that I agree with your analysis anyway.
You are trying to use tribalistic as a negative but it doesn't have that
meaning. And we are not selfish, we are competitive. Selfish would imply
hurting others for no gain of your own and while some individuals do that, as
a whole we don't.

> that generally we devalue human lives with increasing distance from our own
> birthplace, country, class, time, etc.

We don't devalue them because they are far, but rather we don't believe we
have the ability to do anything about their lives, so we ignore them. The
closer someone is to you the more likely you are to help - is that your point?
But people don't help more because they are more similar - people help more
because they have more ability to do so.

~~~
jal278
The way I would interpret the phrase 'apes with shiny toys' (although it was
not me who used that phrase in this thread) -- is that we are slightly-evolved
apes who have become infatuated with our technology. Thoreau said: "Our
inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from
serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end."

It's just that technology is far from a panacea, and it creates as many
problems as it solves. Worse, the problems it creates can be of greater
magnitude than its solutions. For example, arguably technology on its whole
became a net loss once we invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we
never were a push-button away from extinction.

The tragedy of the commons is far from solved; one example is that the
environment is a commons that industrialized nations abuse (and whether it
will have a devastating effect on our future is yet to be decided). It is
great that we have made moral progress as a species, and that we do have
charity; yet how far has our morality progressed when we have food enough to
feed the world yet starvation continues?

No, I'm not claiming that I've entirely overcome the bias of my brain, only
that I'm aware that human brains were evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not
the modern world that we've invented around us; cultural and technological
evolution have outpaced natural evolution in our lineage.

Finally, I entirely disagree with your assertion that we devalue lives in
other countries because we don't have the ability to affect their lives; of
course we can affect the lives of people in other countries -- through charity
as you yourself point out, and in the way that our politics affect other
countries.

For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more
than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot affect
Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so (e.g. the civilian
casualities in Afghanistan dwarf the losses of Americans in 9/11)[1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_\(2001%E2%80%93present\))

~~~
ars
I apologize for saying you were the one who said that about the shiny toys.

But wow do we come from different viewpoints. Are you sure we both have the
same type of brain? :)

> slightly-evolved apes who have become infatuated with our technology

You still think we are more or less similar to apes? I'm having a hard time
responding to this because I just can't understand how you think that way. The
difference between humans and apes is not just a matter of degree, it's a
matter of kind. Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans,
despite how different they look to mice, and how similar to humans.

We aren't infatuated with technology - the use we have of technology is put to
solving the same problems we've always had. How to connect with people, and
how to live.

> For example, arguably technology on its whole became a net loss once we
> invented nuclear weapons -- until that point, we never were a push-button
> away from extinction.

We still aren't. Or are you under the mistaken impression that nuclear bombs
could cause human extinction? All the bombs ever created couldn't do that,
even if carefully detonated (they could cause devastation, but not not
extinction). We have a greater capacity to cause disasters, but an even
greater capacity to solve them, as a whole a net win. And did you loose sight
of the fact that we made these bombs - and only used them twice? That speaks
volumes about humanity. I bet you would have never predicted that if you were
asked a few decades ago if we would use them.

> evolved to suit cave-man conditions, not the modern world that we've
> invented around us; cultural and technological evolution have outpaced
> natural evolution in our lineage

The modern world was not thrust upon us by an outside force, we _created_ it
because it suits us. We don't need to "evolve" to match it - we created it
exactly the way we want.

> For example, to most Americans, American civilian lives are worth much more
> than civilians in say Iraq or Afghanistan; not because Americans cannot
> affect Iraqi or Afghani lives -- we have and continue to do so

You have not made your point. Our president can affect Iraqi lives, but any
individual person on the street can do nothing about it. We read about
sectarian violence between two religious sects (Suni, Shi'ite) that to non-
Muslims appear identical and just can't understand why they even fight, much
less do anything about it.

~~~
orthecreedence
At the risk of engaging in a futile argument, I feel like I have to interject.

> Apes have more in common with mice than they do with humans

No, apes are social, tribal creatures that inter-communicate vocally and via
body language. They use tools and manipulate their environment to make their
quality of life better. They have territory and fight to the death to protect
that territory. If you were to ask me what species this describes, the first
thing that would pop into my head is "human."

If I were to say to someone "You're ugly and your mother's a whore" most
people would have a sudden increase in adrenaline, followed by a wave of
uncontrollable anger. Many times, this anger would drive us to do something
like lash out physically or verbally. The emotions and feelings we experience
throughout the day control us and shape our experience, just like they do an
ape or a dog. Our difference from other mammals is really only defined by our
ego, or our very basic awareness of self. Our awareness of self is rudimentary
at best, yet our egos over-inflate it's abilities and importance.

We've created the environment around us as does a rabbit burrows into the
ground. While the materials we fabricate and build with are unique, all we are
doing is constructing shelters to feel safe.

Your example of nuclear bombs and having them for logical reasons is, in my
opinion, incorrect. Our logical reasons for having weapons that _could_ wipe
out all of humanity can be reduced to little more than an alpha ape beating
its chest at another. Rationalize it however you want. Most of our behavior,
even on the macro level, is controlled by our inherently tribal instinct.

We have not transcended our animal nature, not in the slightest. We've only
fooled ourselves into thinking we have. Language, technology, government; take
these away and you've got apes. Even then, language and government are not
unique to humans.

------
ebbv
This view is so childish it is only taken seriously by those who already agree
with it.

> Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil starts to run out,
> petroleum is discovered

But not before many types of whale were nearly wiped out, and may yet go
extinct.

> or that when farm yields flatten, fertilizer comes along,

What? Fertilizers have been known for centuries. Modern fertilizers are hardly
a panacea. They come with costs of their own.

> or that when glass fiber is invented, demand for copper falls.

This has nothing to do with any of the other arguments, and demand for copper
is still high enough that people are stripping it out of vacant buildings via
breaking and entering. Risking injury, jail time and even death.

> But optimists see economic growth leading to technological change that would
> result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow warming to level
> off long before it does much harm.

It's pretty obvious if you look objectively at the data that "much harm" has
already been done.

This blog post is the epitome of biased garbage.

~~~
batmansbelt
Not to mention that modern fertilizer is petro-chemical and it is very much
limited by the finiteness of those resources.

------
vsbuffalo
> But thanks to fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been
> postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you will
> run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out of a harbor
> in Ireland.

As an economist, how can the author not see that the hidden environmental
costs are growing? As markets demand natural gas within a cost range while
resources are limited, the solution becomes to pass this cost off on the
environment. The environment doesn't have a powerful advocacy and can't fight
back.

I am disappointed that economists buy these models so readily without doing
real accounting as to _all_ costs. I think this is a problem in modern
economics — we can easily measure monetary costs through accounting and
prices, but other costs are hard to measure so the model treats them as
residuals. Then, they run predictions with their models that completely ignore
environmental costs. Don't argue markets don't have a cost on the environment
when you've failed to include environmental costs in your models.

~~~
beat
The author's view is terribly shortsighted. "I'm going to run out of money
next month" versus "I'm going to run out of money next year". Same outcome.

His fallacy, and it's a common one, is thinking that because the problem may
be postponed past his own lifetime, that it doesn't matter. What about a
hundred years from now? A thousand? Ten thousand?

I for one don't relish leaving my descendants a future in which environmental
equilibrium is reached by starving or shooting a few billion surplus people.

------
mkempe
Two fundamental arguments of the thesis that we will not "run out" of natural
resources for productive purpose have been made eloquently in:

\- The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless
potential to select and pursue the use of materials; and

\- Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to
actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch
production accordingly.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691003815)

[2]
[http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0084RU67S),
see Part One, Chapter 3

~~~
coldtea
> _The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon [1] --the human mind has limitless
> potential to select and pursue the use of materials_

Only if those materials exist in the actual world first. So not that limitless
after all. (And that's if we indeed accept that the mind's potential is
"limitless", which is non-scientific mumbo jumbo).

> _Capitalism by George Reisman [2] -- the phenomenon of price responds to
> actual supply and demand, and prompts profit-seekers to develop and switch
> production accordingly._

Says nothing about resources "not running out" \-- just about distribution and
demand of them, when they are available. A tribe of capitalists in a desert
without water would still die of first.

~~~
mkempe
Have you read either or both of these books? you seem to be arguing with straw
men.

~~~
coldtea
I'm arguing with the very phrases used here supposedly to describe the gist of
each book.

If those are accurate, then there's no point in reading the books at all (like
I wouldn't read a book described as "the best arguments why the Earth is
flat").

Now the descriptions might not be accurate, and those could be excellent
books. But, alas, the only information I have had to judge whether I should
read those books comes from the OP introducing them with those descriptions.

------
beat
Interesting to dovetail that against the recent top article here that we are
reaching the end of the antibiotics era. I hope we have a replacement for
fossil fuel when the time comes, but I worry about too much "rational
optimism". Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing, and Pangloss was sarcasm,
not a role model.

------
coldtea
"Rational opimist"? Sounds rather dellusional to me, one of those guys that
made a religion out of science and/or technology.

> _" But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such
> limits again and again."_

Yeah, just like Bertrand Russel's inductivist (and rational optimist) turkey:

The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at
9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He
waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9
a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on
Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added
another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he
had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that “I
am always fed at 9 a.m.”.

However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his
throat cut.

------
facepalm
\- Catastrophes happened in the past that killed lots of people. Technology
did not always save our ass

\- Read "Collapse"

\- What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has
run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in
your apartment?

~~~
Kerrick
> What about resources like housing? It sounds to me as if housing in SF has
> run out? Build lots of skyscrapers everywhere? Then what about sunlight in
> your apartment?

I think in a tradeoff of "There's literally no more room for anybody to live,"
and "I have to go outside to get sunlight," I'd choose the latter.

~~~
facepalm
Sure, but I don't think it really qualifies as "see, science solves every
problem". And what if there are houses everywhere? There will be time slots
for rooftops. After a certain size of the houses, there will not be enough
rooftops for everyone to get sunshine.

------
thunderbong
Finally. Someone who makes sane and balanced points rather than take a binary
position.

~~~
beat
Ugh, I _hate_ the "balanced" argument for "middle ground".

If one person says 2 + 2 = 4 and another says 2 + 2 = 6, the truth is NOT that
2 + 2 = 5.

~~~
Abraln
At least he included multiple positive stories of government interference. If
the free market says something nessesary is not worth it, tip the scales to
MAKE it worth it. Tax hikes on polluters and non renewables and tax cuts for
going free would go a LONG way. Too bad it won't ever happen.

------
znull
You want to settle a dispute between economists and ecologists? Ask a
physicist: [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/about-this-
blog/](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/about-this-blog/)

~~~
beat
Or ask a cartoon physicist on xkcd.

[http://xkcd.com/793/](http://xkcd.com/793/)

------
ForHackernews
Just because things have worked out in the past doesn't mean they always will.
Despair might actually be the correct response:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-
we-know-it-and-he-feels-fine.html)

------
hxrts
Time lag is a critical issue that needs to be accounted for. If we assume that
innovation will mediate the worst effects of global warming then we neglect
the possibility that forcing conditions created today may have consequences
that manifest themselves over the next 20 or 50 years. Global warming is not
like any problem that humanity has ever had to confront and it's dangerous to
wave away the scale and complexity of the problem as something innovation will
eventually rectify.

~~~
orthecreedence
Yes, but the free market will invent time machines and we can go back 50 years
and warn ourselves. The free market will save us.

------
sharemywin
I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit.
As long as we can get fusion to work. otherwise we better hope solar and
battery prices drop enough to leave coal in the dust.

~~~
whythehellnot
Our environment can't handle the damage by the time we get fusion to be useful
for us or solar/battery become efficient/cost effective. We need to be
thinking for today, as in right friggen now. Everyone I have ever seen or
heard talk about this issue is always proposing the solution won't be too far
away because of X.

NO IDIOT. We have the technology to stop all this right bloody now! One of
which is so overlooked it's offensive. Latest Gen Nuclear fission should be
replacing coal plants en-mass. The fact that it's not is so disheartening that
I just want every coal lobbyist to choke on his own toxic waste...

------
sharemywin
I think if you combine vertical farms with nuclear fusion the skies the limit.

------
danford
So in short: The free market will save us.

~~~
marknutter
It always has.

~~~
orthecreedence
The world climate is collapsing (hypothetical scenario).

The proponents of free market say:

"The market will adapt to fix the problems causing climate change!"

What really happens:

"I've built a mask that lets you breath the Earth's new poisonous atmosphere!"

"Well my mask lets you breath twice as much air per minute!!"

"My mask does all this !but! shows an interactive map of the next sulfuric
acid rain storm so you can find your way to our nearest BioShelter2000. Buy
now, and you get a month BioShelter pass, letting you stay for free up to 4
hours per day, including use of the bathroom!"

------
lasermike026
Must man destroy everything?

~~~
lavamantis
yes. [http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275885377/in-the-worlds-
sixth-...](http://www.npr.org/2014/02/12/275885377/in-the-worlds-sixth-
extinction-are-humans-the-asteroid)

~~~
lasermike026
No. Our species must make the small evolutionary step to change general
behavior or die. I am willing to make every ethical change to make that
possible and I think I would like to live in that world.

~~~
lavamantis
You're a bit of an idealist, which I admire. I don't think the human race will
die any time soon, but the same can't be said for countless other species of
plants and animals that we are CURRENTLY wiping out. Our environment is
getting a little crappier every day. I really hope as a whole we can follow
your lead and make some changes. But my expectations are low.

