Happy Earth Overshoot Day

[Illusions]

Technically capitalism will fix the resource problem, just in a non-palatable way. As a resource becomes scarcer, its price will increase due to lowered supply and either stable or increasing demand. As its price increases, fewer people will be able to purchase it, leading to less of it being used. Eventually as it become incredibly rare, very few people will be able to afford it. So a few hundred years from now only eccentric rich people will be loading helium into party balloons instead of expensive medical equipment or scientific devices. This is of course a funny hypothetical situation, not an actual statement on helium scarcity in the future.

[Lewkowski]

Y'all are so bad. 20 years ago liberals were complaining that we were going to run out of oil to use. Still going strong. Even if oil runs out it just means we'll use another resource. We are centuries (if not further) from having a true shortage of materials needed to create energy.

Liberals 30 years ago talked about the mass starvation just around the corner. News flash - we are still making plenty of food and now have record levels of population.

Every time liberals have claimed sky is falling bull shit the free market has solved the issue. Enough with the fear mongering and just relax.

[Khendraja'aro]

And which other resource besides oil will we use? Do you even know what oil is used for besides combustion engines?

And how efficient will this other resource be? You're deluded.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm curious how he plans to replace water. Hes from Texas right? Where 30 cities are planning to be dry by the end of the year because of fracking

[RandBlade]

You do know that our earth is actually finite? As in: Has known mass, radius and thus also finite resources?

Seriously even you can come up with a better argument than that can't you?

If you really want to go down that route (I don't) then yes the Earth's mass is known. It is 5.972E24 Kg

Since we're past this overshoot how much are we over-using that mass by? If you really want to go down that route? How long would it take to even make a nudge in that figure?

That's not "luddism", my dear. Maybe you should look up the term as you're not knowing what it means.

Luddites are those who oppose technological progress which is what we are achieving. Apparently according to the muppets who sprout crap about "overshoot" we're using more resources than can be supported but there's some magical reason why technological progress is going to halt? Despite all progress already getting made let alone future developments

I suppose you and Nessus and anyone else who is sprouting this ideology and refuses to countenance the idea and usage of progress (pretty much the definition of Luddism yes) believe that anyone working is scientific research, education, technological developments, R&D, business development etc, etc are all wasting their time?

Maybe you believe we should get rid of all those scientists etc as we can't have any more progress and they should be doing something you consider productive like farming for more resources?

Personally I think that'd be silly but its all you seem to respect.

No one is saying we need to dismantle electrical looms to preserve jobs, but there is still a finite amount of electricity to be had on this here Earth. You, quite literally, seem to believe there is a magical solution to generating infinite amounts of power and chemicals, just because that's what capitalism calls for. The Komsomol couldn't have done a better job at brain-washing.

No, scientific solutions. I hate to break it to you Farmer Joe but Science isn't Magic.

That's extraordinarily naïve and presupposes that there are perfect solutions--that are PALATABLE to us--to which we can arrive through capitalism. What you're expressing is just another version of the same faith that "informs" the religious and it is a faith that is totally removed from a reality in which we often find ourselves to be "too late" or find ourselves fatally constrained, eg. by the physical world, by ethical considerations, etc.

And that's without even getting into the "right incentives" handwaving

No the doomsday scenarios which have time and again for centuries been shown to be bullshit and rely on the idea that centuries of progress will grind to a complete and sudden STOP are no different to the doomsday religious "The End Is Nigh" scenarios which have time and again for centuries have been shown to be bullshit.

I don't believe in religious garbage, or pseudo-scientific garbage that relies upon science coming to a halt.

And which other resource besides oil will we use? Do you even know what oil is used for besides combustion engines?

And how efficient will this other resource be? You're deluded.

We already have alternatives being researched. Sorry that you think scientists are wasting their time when they could be farming for the Party comrade but I respect them.

[Steely Glint]

No, scientific solutions. I hate to break it to you Farmer Joe but Science isn't Magic.

No, but when you use the phrase "Science will solve it" in the same way you'd use the phrase "a wizard did it", then it shows that you're confusing one with the other.

[RandBlade]

No, but when you use the phrase "Science will solve it" in the same way you'd use the phrase "a wizard did it", then it shows that you're confusing one with the other.

Not when science has been solving it for centuries. When your argument relies on sciencing coming to a grinding halt without providing any evidence as to why you want to believe that then that is not credible.

This term of Earth Overshoot Day is new having been coined in recent years, the concept behind it has been misused for centuries though. There is a far older term not from the 21st century, not from the 20th century or 19th century but back from the 18th century. The Malthusian catastrophe.

When you want to go for centuries claiming "the end is nigh" then I'm not going to take you seriously. Come up with some evidence that something's changed - some evidence that science has stopped developing and you believe all scientists are redundant. But nobody will. Because its not true. So we'll just repackage old paranoia's and cry the end is nigh once again and just IGNORE science.

There has been no truth in the theories of Malthus for centuries and there isn't now. It is not from a right-wing capitalist viewpoint Friedrich Engels criticised it and I agree with his criticism dating back to 1844: "[Scientific] progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population" - that has been true since it was written 169 years ago through to today.

[Khendraja'aro]

Luddites are those who oppose technological progress which is what we are achieving.

First of all, you didn't even get Luddism right. But Nessus has forbidden me from explaining it to you and, frankly, you probably won't understand the distinction.

Secondly, pray tell me where we are "opposing" technological progress.

I mean, I studied and am teaching Chemistry and Physics, both areas stuffed to the brim with technology. I am also one of the technological advisors at my school, one of the guys my colleagues turn to when they want to know which new tools have come up. This should give you a hint that our opposition to your arguments does not exactly stem from an opposition to science and technology.

Hint: If you told us that we'd reach Alpha Centauri in the next ten years, we'd also tell you that you're an idiot.

We're telling you that there's in all likelihood a limit to what technology is able to achieve without upsetting the current order catastrophically. I mean, I'd like to think that we'd get FTL drives and cornucopia machines and whatnot, I'm not opposed to that technology at all. It's just that we won't reach that level.

At the moment you're looking rather foolish. I mean, do you accuse your wife of being a luddite just because she tells you that your car won't make that next curve in the road if you're driving faster than 80 km/h?

[Aimless]

Well I'm glad RB has decided that austerity is unnecessary and that science will solve all problems associated with govt. deficits etc.

[RandBlade]

If I was driving at just 50mph and told me that my car wouldn't make the next curve in the road on the motorway because of that then I'd want her to stop back seat driving as it would.

Yes there may be a theoretical limit but we've not shown any hint of reaching such a limit. There has been no evidence provided AT ALL in this thread that this Malthusian nonsense parroted for centuries in one form or another is scientifically accurate now with regards to reasonable future technology.

[RandBlade]

Well I'm glad RB has decided that austerity is unnecessary and that science will solve all problems associated with govt. deficits etc.

Austerity for us (not the Greeks) is about providing more with less. Becoming more efficient, reducing waste etc

That's exactly the sort of progress that can resolve this. Austerity is not the end of the world.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes there may be a theoretical limit but we've not shown any hint of reaching such a limit.

Then you haven't been following the news for the last decades. I mean, even Exxon and Shell stated themselves that the easy-to-reach deposits of oil have all been found.

[LittleFuzzy]

Technically capitalism will fix the resource problem, just in a non-palatable way.

Well, in a not-necessarily palatable way. What capitalism provides is a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. It motivates and rewards solutions and work-arounds. It could be the problem is ignored and it adapts just with pricing and scarecity. Other "fixes" we've seen are new resources, better access to previously inaccessible sources, or switching to different technology and methods entirely. What it doesn't do is incentivize preventative measures which would not actually be profitable except in altered circumstances which won't be reached in the near-future.

[RandBlade]

Then you haven't been following the news for the last decades. I mean, even Exxon and Shell stated themselves that the easy-to-reach deposits of oil have all been found.

Really? You don't want to rethink that? Just to be clear you're claiming that Exxon and Shell haven't found extra deposits in recent decades?

And we haven't developed new methods of converting difficult-to-reach deposits into now easy-to-reach deposits?

I suppose all the talk about Fracking is for nothing then?

[Lewkowski]

So when's the world going to implode Khen? I'd like to laugh at you when that date passes and we're all still here living similar or improved life life styles.

[Khendraja'aro]

Okay, I apologize. The logic was a bit more difficult than 2+2=4 and it clearly flew right over your head.

You said the following: "[...]but we've not shown any hint of reaching such a limit."

We have the documented statements of the spokesmen of two large oil companies that the easy-to-find deposits indeed have been found. Which means that those are limited in number (and also capacity). Which leaves us with the not-so-easy-to-find-and-exploit deposits. Which, as should be clear to anyone with at least half a brain, are also limited in number and capacity.

That is your hint, my dear. I suggest you engage your brain FOR ONCE and start thinking instead of being a dunce who's clearly unable to read because I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THEY DID NOT FIND EXTRA DEPOSITS, YOU MORON!

I seems I have a better grasp of the English language than some native speakers here if they are unable to understand the word they themselves are using. "Hint", Rand, that's the word you used and the word I replied to. That's your bloody HINT: "It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive." - Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008

[RandBlade]

No its not. Its simply not.

I never said limit of oil - I said reaching a limit on progress that we can support ourselves. And we've not.

Not only have deposits been increasing not decreasing if you check the facts, not only have we been developing new ways to access previously inaccessible deposits, not only is more expensive oil usable, not only have we got enough oil to last for many more decades at today's technology but we have also got research going on into post-oil alternatives.

[earthJoker]

I somehow like the country debt analogy. Because it kinda proves both scenarios of you guys.

It is fairly possible that we (as humanity) are/will doing the Greece way. Living of the dept (fossils in this case) and have a nice day until we find out it is not possible anymore. But it is also as likely that we use the credit that earth is giving us to invest. It's no problem to take a credit as long as you spend it in something with more return later. Actually most investments need some credit at one time.

So maybe we are lucky, just if we aren't, there won't be a Germany to bail us out.

[Khendraja'aro]

No its not. Its simply not.

Of course Rand. And the magical capitalist fairies will come to the rescue in your magical Lala-Land.

By the way, those post-oil alternatives you're talking about? Those are not really achievements of capitalism.

[RandBlade]

By the way, those post-oil alternatives you're talking about? Those are not really achievements of capitalism.

The success or failure of Google, Toyota, Tesla etc have nothing to do with capitalism? Interesting.

[Khendraja'aro]

Last time I looked, that stuff was predominantly researched at universities. Or do you think that the underlying technology appears magically from the sky?

Your nice and oh-so-inventive capitalism got rid of research centers such as the Bell Labs, my dear.

The companies you named? Those put a polish on tech that's been found through public funding.

[GGT]

Really? You don't want to rethink that? Just to be clear you're claiming that Exxon and Shell haven't found extra deposits in recent decades?

And we haven't developed new methods of converting difficult-to-reach deposits into now easy-to-reach deposits?

I suppose all the talk about Fracking is for nothing then?

You're still using fossil fuel extraction as best examples of "new methods and technologies" for future energy. That doesn't make sense when you consider ALL the science: emission pollutants, water consumption and contamination, or the energy required to extract and distribute those fossil fuels.

Canada may have Oil Sands, but it's still a dirty and expensive extraction/refining/delivery process. The US may have shale resources for oil and natural gas, but fracking has been contaminating underground aquifers and water resources. Potable water and arable land aren't resources that can be easily replenished or recreated once they've been trashed or destroyed.

Should we apply lessons-learned decades ago, that clear-cutting forests for wood pulp/lumber or coffee crops, underground or surface mountain mining for coal, and deep ocean drilling for oil......comes with disastrous and often irreversible consequences?

[earthJoker]

The companies you named? Those put a polish on tech that's been found through public funding.

It's not really that extreme. It goes hand in hand. To think that capitalism solve the problem by itself is about as wrong as thinking you can solve everything without it.

[Loki]

Last time I looked, that stuff was predominantly researched at universities. Or do you think that the underlying technology appears magically from the sky?

Your nice and oh-so-inventive capitalism got rid of research centers such as the Bell Labs, my dear.

The companies you named? Those put a polish on tech that's been found through public funding.

Ignoring the role economic incentives have in driving that kind of research, or in allowing companies with good products to make a lot of money. Where are all the great products from the Soviet Union, which had some pretty smart scientists and spent a good chuck of money on science?

[Aimless]

Ignoring the role economic incentives have in driving that kind of research, or in allowing companies with good products to make a lot of money. Where are all the great products from the Soviet Union, which had some pretty smart scientists and spent a good chuck of money on science?

Er I'm fairly sure the source of funding wasn't the only thing that set apart the USSR from the West wrt research and its application

[Aimless]

The companies you named? Those put a polish on tech that's been found through public funding.

That's an exaggeration at the very least, Khen, and grossly underestimates both the role of profit incentives and the direct role companies have in R&D.

[Loki]

Why else did Soviet scientists fail to produce many worthwhile products?

[Aimless]

Why else did Soviet scientists fail to produce many worthwhile products?

Are you asking what other relevant factors there may have been besides the source of research funding? How about cultural and institutional resistance to creativity in both conducting and applying research? How about firmly held and enforced opinions from politicians on what was ideologically acceptable and worthwhile research? How about top-down directives endorsing incorrect theories and dismissing/suppressing correct ones based on ideological preferences? How about limitations on international collaboration? How about differences in the pool of non-scientist inventors and tinkerers? How about differences in the market for products regardless of initial funding, eg. regular private citizens vs. large state-owned industries? How about differences in patent laws? How about the fact that the USSR doesn't actually exist anymore?

[Loki]

How can you separate cultural and institutional resistances from a country's socio-economic system? How can you separate centralized decision-making from that same factor?

[Aimless]

How can you separate cultural and institutional resistances from a country's socio-economic system? How can you separate centralized decision-making from that same factor?

Yes, that was indeed the implied question posed to you in my post:

Er I'm fairly sure the source of funding wasn't the only thing that set apart the USSR from the West wrt research and its application