Depletion of Resources

[The Last Conformist]

I guess we've jacked the abortion thread more than's called for already, so let's make a new thread about sustainable resource use.

As you probably know, various environmentalists and biologists have tried to estimate how many humans the Earth can sustainably support, and, worryingly, come up with numbers much less than the current world population.

luiz argued that the fact that there's more people today living at a higher standard of living than ever now disproves this conclusion. I completely fail to see the logic behind this, and despite repeatedly asking for further explanation, I've not got it.

In short, please continue the discussion here.

 

[The Last Conformist]

For reference, my last post on the subject in the abortion thread:

______________________________

How not?

It's you claiming it proves anything - I suggest you first explain how it proves it.

That's not the real core of the non-sustainability argument. All of those doomsayers have a very distinctive political agenda, but I'll leave that to another debate.

1) If the core of the non-sustainability argument isn't that we're using up resources at a non-sustainable rate, was is this core?
2) What are we then to call the argument centering on that we use up resources at a non-unsustainable rate?

My argument rests on the fact that we are not depleting even a fraction of the essential resources, the ones neede to support life.

Sources, please.

Oil is not among those(and by the way if doomsayers were right there would be no oil today).

I did say oil was an essential resource - I brought it up as an example of a resource that's used at a non-sustainable rate but despite this hasn't run out yet.

Explain why there would be no oil today if "doomsayers" were right, BTW.

The ammount of oxygen in the world can support hundreds of times more people. With de-salting(if that's a word) technology we could have access to an endless source of water. Solar energy, if properly applied, could provide electricity for billions of years. The soil could grow many times more food then it currently does, and plenty of rich lands are still empty. Tell me, what exactly is depleated?

No-one's saying anything is depleted.

Arable land is currently being destroyed quicker than new is forming (this could change if global warming got going in earnest). Fish stocks are collapsing pretty much everywhere. Just two examples from the top of my heads.

 

[Little Raven]

But then again those predictions are usually based on rational observations and refer to relatavily local catastrophes. For exemple, since the 20's there wre people predicting the fall of the Soviet Union. But that's not doomsaying, that's Economic good sense.

*chuckle* You're making this too easy, luiz.

You have a global economy that demands 81.1 million barrels per day in order to function. You have an estimated 1.1 trillion barrels in reserves. There have been no major finds of oil fields in the last two years. Economic good sense doesn't have anything to say about this?

As for the mayans, comparing them to our civilization is a huge stretch.

Not as much as you might think. They were the most advanced civilization in their world, and they were actually less confined by their environment than we are today. It's not entirely clear what destroyed them, but the point is that an entire civilization suddenly met something it could not deal with. That happens from time to time. And I haven't seen any evidence that our civilization is any less vulnerable to that than the ancient Mayans. Humans haven't changed much in the last 1000 years.

What I actually mean by doomsaying is a global catastrophe, like the population gowing down to a couple of billions or the living standars going back to the Middle-Ages. Or Jesus coming for the thrid time and wiping the impure out. Or aliens invading. And so on. The fact that some civilizations fell and some observers were able to predict it is acceptable.

Exactly why do you feel that global catastrophe cannot happen? Let's exclude the more fanciful scenarios and focus on one: resource depletion. Why exactly do you feel that our global society cannot fall from a lack of resources? (and the wars that will inevitably accompany shortages?)

 

[cgannon64]

If you mean sustainability of our current society, then you're right, we can't support as much of us, and, as Little Raven pointed out, the most obvious reason being oil.

But if you mean human beings in general, I think with a few modifications (that will be forced upon us) we could fit a few billion more. Perhaps even more than that.

 

[luiz]

Ok, I just saw this thread now and as such I will post what I just posted in the abortion thread.

1) If the core of the non-sustainability argument isn't that we're using up resources at a non-sustainable rate, was is this core?
2) What are we then to call the argument centering on that we use up resources at a non-unsustainable rate?

What the non-susteinability people actually want to say is that Capitalism is destroying the Earth. It has nothing to do with sciences or observation, it's merely politics.

Sources, please.

Do you see a shortage of Oxygen? Or arable land? Or water*?
*Considering that the water of the ocean can be used for consumption, and in fact is in some coutries.

I did say oil was an essential resource - I brought it up as an example of a resource that's used at a non-sustainable rate but despite this hasn't run out yet.

And nothing suggests that it will ever run out.
Once prices go high we will have find other sources of energy, and we will never use the rest of the oil.

Explain why there would be no oil today if "doomsayers" were right, BTW.

In the 60's they said that oil would be depleated in the 90's.

No-one's saying anything is depleted.

Arable land is currently being destroyed quicker than new is forming (this could change if global warming got going in earnest). Fish stocks are collapsing pretty much everywhere. Just two examples from the top of my heads.

Arable land beign destroyed? Where?
In the Sahel maybe, but not in the areas that produce most of the food If anything, technology made possible that new lands are now suited for commercial agriculture. The ammount of arable land in Brazil is gowing up since the 70's.

Even if all fish in the sea are destroyed, we could still keep the current production levels with fish-pool productions. In fact that's the way of the future. Most shrimps we eat today were cultivated, and not fished at the sea. Since the cultivation of fish is much more efficient then fishing in the sea, if anything the ammount of fishs avaiable for consumption will rise. Now certainly some species might disappear, but that will not affect the overall production.

 

[luiz]

*chuckle* You're making this too easy, luiz.

You have a global economy that demands 81.1 million barrels per day in order to function. You have an estimated 1.1 trillion barrels in reserves. There have been no major finds of oil fields in the last two years. Economic good sense doesn't have anything to say about this?

I believe in two things regarding this subject:
1-It's highly probable that new reserves fo considerable size lie in the coast of Western Africa, particularly Angola. Petrobrás already bought rights to explore a large part of the angolan coast, and they don't do those things for free.
2-I also believe that as soon as the prices of oil start to rise at levels bordering the unsusteinability, the development of alternative energies will gain a boom. Once investors see big opportunities in alternative energy, they will put big bucks in research. And don't tell me that investors are blind: they have their money for a reason.

Not as much as you might think. They were the most advanced civilization in their world, and they were actually less confined by their environment than we are today. It's not entirely clear what destroyed them, but the point is that an entire civilization suddenly met something it could not deal with. That happens from time to time. And I haven't seen any evidence that our civilization is any less vulnerable to that than the ancient Mayans.

Most advanced civilization in their world, that's right. Their very restricted and isolated world.
They had just a handful of cities, quite unlike us. Most historians believe that a severall wars lead them to decay. Now, one thing is to a civilization composed of half-dozen of cities decay. Another, completely different, is a global civilization composed of billions squatered all through the globe to suddenlt collpse.

The mayans were one tiny civilization that was fairly advanced considering their location and time. But that does not change the fact that they were tiny.

Humans haven't changed much in the last 1000 years.

That's plain insanity. Check our numbers, or our life expectancy.

Exactly why do you feel that global catastrophe cannot happen? Let's exclude the more fanciful scenarios and focus on one: resource depletion. Why exactly do you feel that our global society cannot fall from a lack of resources? (and the wars that will inevitably accompany shortages?)

Because the truly essential resources are millions of years away from depletion, and the strategic ones such as oil can be replaced.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What the non-susteinability people actually want to say is that Capitalism is destroying the Earth. It has nothing to do with sciences or observation, it's merely politics.

Claiming that those advancing some claim is doing so for dishonest purposes in no way refutes their claims.

Do you see a shortage of Oxygen? Or arable land? Or water*?
*Considering that the water of the ocean can be used for consumption, and in fact is in some coutries.

You are absolutely unable to grasp the difference between a present shortage and a situation where present consumption will lead to a future shortage, are you?

And nothing suggests that it will ever run out.
Once prices go high we will have find other sources of energy, and we will never use the rest of the oil.

By "the oil running" out we mean that all commercially usable sources will be gone, and you know it.

In the 60's they said that oil would be depleated in the 90's.

True. But that one set of "doomsayers'" predictions failed does not mean at all other doomsayers will be wrong.

Arable land beign destroyed? Where?
In the Sahel maybe, but not in the areas that produce most of the food If anything, technology made possible that new lands are now suited for commercial agriculture. The ammount of arable land in Brazil is gowing up since the 70's.

That's funny, since Brazil is a place I've seen listed as one where arable land is being destroyed. Oh well, I'll try and find some data tomorrow.

Even if all fish in the sea are destroyed, we could still keep the current production levels with fish-pool productions.

If true, wouldn't change the fact that a resource has been depleted.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's plain insanity. Check our numbers, or our life expectancy.

The change in life expectancy is mostly due to decreased child mortality. Not that increased lifespans is a good thing from the POV of resource depletion.

As for numbers, well, in this case Marx was wrong - quantity isn't quality.

Because the truly essential resources are millions of years away from depletion

A couple posts ago they weren't going to deplete.

 

[luiz]

Claiming that those advancing some claim is doing so for dishonest purposes in no way refutes their claims.

Not necessarily dishonest, but what I said is true.
Since the Economic arguments against Capitalism failed and have beign disproved, the anti-capitalists have started to use pseudo-moral and pseudo-ecological arguments to "prove" why Capitalism is so evil.

You are absolutely unable to grasp the difference between a present shortage and a situation where present consumption will lead to a future shortage, are you?

A shortage of water*? Or Oxygen? Or arable land?
Yes, I'm unable to see that coming.
*It might happen in some countries, but due to lack of money, not due to lack of the resource water.

By "the oil running" out we mean that all commercially usable sources will be gone, and you know it.

What I said is that it will be replaced in time.

True. But that one set of "doomsayers'" predictions failed does not mean at all other doomsayers will be wrong.

They are saying the same things though. Nothing knew has come up.

That's funny, since Brazil is a place I've seen listed as one where arable land is being destroyed. Oh well, I'll try and find some data tomorrow.

You'll probably readf stuff about the desertification going on the Northeast. But fact is, those areas never produced anything in the first place, and they were always excessively arid and not arable at all.
On the other hand, vast ammount of lands in the Midwest, that were considered too acid for commercial use, now have the highest productivity in the world. The percentage of arable land in Brazil is continuing to go high.

If true, wouldn't change the fact that a resource has been depleted.

Resources will be depleated, I don't deny that. In fact many have already been depleated. But that does not destroy the susteinability of our current numbers.

 

[luiz]

The change in life expectancy is mostly due to decreased child mortality. Not that increased lifespans is a good thing from the POV of resource depletion.

Not only decreased child mortality but also the fact that now someone with 40 years is not considered an elder.

As for numbers, well, in this case Marx was wrong - quantity isn't quality.

Quality of life also increased, if that's what you mean.

A couple posts ago they weren't going to deplete.

They will get depleated at some point, but it's extremely far away and nothing suggests that we can't maintain a larger population for thousands, if not millions, of years

 

[The Last Conformist]

A shortage of water*? Or Oxygen? Or arable land?
Yes, I'm unable to see that coming.

I was simply asking if you understood the difference. It's pretty basic, but several of your posts in this discussion has read like if you don't

Do you, BTW, have an answer as to why current human numbers and living standards should prove the Earth can support present or larger numbers sustainably, or are you prepared to concede the point?

Not necessarily dishonest, but what I said is true.
Since the Economic arguments against Capitalism failed and have beign disproved, the anti-capitalists have started to use pseudo-moral and pseudo-ecological arguments to "prove" why Capitalism is so evil.

Whether true or not, this is irrelevant.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Not only decreased child mortality but also the fact that now someone with 40 years is not considered an elder.

From what I know of social history, 40-year-olds have never been considered particularly old, at least not in my part of the world.

Quality of life also increased, if that's what you mean.

No, I mean that the fact that there's alot more of us now that a thousand years ago does not mean that we've changed in any fundamental way. Quality of life is very much a surface phenomenon.

 

[Little Raven]

I believe in two things regarding this subject:
1-It's highly probable that new reserves fo considerable size lie in the coast of Western Africa, particularly Angola. Petrobrás already bought rights to explore a large part of the angolan coast, and they don't do those things for free.

Those are deepwater reserves. We can't get at those cheaply, at least not yet. In fact, in many cases, we can't get to them at all.

However, the production capabilities of the ultra-deepwater reservoirs in water depths from greater than 1500 m to more than 3000m remains largely a mystery at this time, particularly for gas. Water temperatures at ultra-deepwater depths are below the freezing temperature of methane, so any sea-floor pipelines, manifolds and wet trees must mix “anti-freeze” into the gas to keep it from forming gas hydrates (also called clathrates) which can plug the pipes.

Even if we can figure out a way to get at them, extracting that oil is going to take a lot of energy, which means our overall energy efficiency goes down. Remember, peak oil isn't about running out of oil, it's about running out of cheap oil.

2-I also believe that as soon as the prices of oil start to rise at levels bordering the unsusteinability, the development of alternative energies will gain a boom. Once investors see big opportunities in alternative energy, they will put big bucks in research. And don't tell me that investors are blind: they have their money for a reason.

So basically, you're betting that we'll find a replacement for oil. That's a reasonable position, though certainly debatable. But here's the catch: What if we don't? Assume, just for a moment, that we cannot find a replacement for the energy we currently pull from hydrocarbons. What happens to our global society then?

They had just a handful of cities, quite unlike us. Most historians believe that a severall wars lead them to decay. Now, one thing is to a civilization composed of half-dozen of cities decay. Another, completely different, is a global civilization composed of billions squatered all through the globe to suddenlt collpse.

No, not really. The scale is different, the theory is much the same. Let's look at another case, that of Easter Island. Easter Island once boasted a thriving human community of over 7000 people. It was also a society based entirely upon wood.

Then they ran out of trees. Within a few generations, the population had collapsed to less than half of their previous number, and were engaged in nearly perpetual warfare and even cannibalism.

We have a mighty civilization that spans the world, but it runs on oil. Take the oil away, and everything...from transportation to medical care to food...disappears. How long do you think we could keep our current numbers if that happened? And don't you think that if oil ever started getting low, the US army would seize Venezuela and happily kill anyone who tried to prevent what oil remained from going to the US?

That's plain insanity. Check our numbers, or our life expectancy.

Oh, we've climbed very high, luiz, no doubt about that. But our spire is built on a single spar...black gold. If we lose it, we fall.

Because the truly essential resources are millions of years away from depletion, and the strategic ones such as oil can be replaced.

Maybe they can be replaced. Maybe they can't. We won't know until we replace them...or don't. But if you're not worried about oil, here's something else to chew on.

Human use of fresh water has quadrupled since the 1940s and is still growing fast, driven by population growth and more affluent 'water-hungry' lifestyles with household appliances, golf courses to tender and a taste for year-round fresh food.

...

One-fifth of humanity - 1.1 billion people - has no access to safe drinking water. This, together with lack of sanitation for 2.4 billion people, causes a child to die every 15 seconds and five million deaths a year.

...

Half of the planet's wetlands were lost during the twentieth century, in part due to these pressures, while ground water supplies are becoming polluted and running out.

Maybe you can live without your car. How long can you live without water?

 

[crystal]

Luiz, I'm a bit disappointed by the quality of your arguments. Normally you can do better.

What the non-susteinability people actually want to say is that Capitalism is destroying the Earth. It has nothing to do with sciences or observation, it's merely politics.

It's actually quite the opposite. I would advise you to read The Earth Transformed. It contains plenty of examples of how human activity is destroying the biosphere. If you don't want to buy that book, get it from a library or something...

Do you see a shortage of Oxygen? Or arable land? Or water*?
*Considering that the water of the ocean can be used for consumption, and in fact is in some coutries.
And nothing suggests that it will ever run out.
Once prices go high we will have find other sources of energy, and we will never use the rest of the oil.

Blah blah blah. See above.

In the 60's they said that oil would be depleated in the 90's.

A logical fallacy: if they falsely predicted in the 60's that oil will run out, it doesn't mean the today's predictions are false.

Arable land beign destroyed? Where?
In the Sahel maybe, but not in the areas that produce most of the food If anything, technology made possible that new lands are now suited for commercial agriculture. The ammount of arable land in Brazil is gowing up since the 70's.

At least a chart in The Earth Transformed says that 4.5% of terrestial net primary primary production are lost due to desertification, and a total of 8% of NPP are lost due human activity. (although that figure is 10 years old, so it's nowadays a higher number)

Even if all fish in the sea are destroyed, we could still keep the current production levels with fish-pool productions. In fact that's the way of the future. Most shrimps we eat today were cultivated, and not fished at the sea. Since the cultivation of fish is much more efficient then fishing in the sea, if anything the ammount of fishs avaiable for consumption will rise. Now certainly some species might disappear, but that will not affect the overall production.

It would a lot simpler just to decrease consumption and/or population, would it?

 

[AVN]

Hmmm, I'm surprised a little bit by the posts of Little Raven.
I thought he was a libertarian and now he's worried about depletion (and rightly so).

I personally don't believe that a free market can resolve the issues of depletion. Government interference is necessary in such cases.

But maybe I'm missing some point.

 

[luiz]

I was simply asking if you understood the difference. It's pretty basic, but several of your posts in this discussion has read like if you don't

Do you, BTW, have an answer as to why current human numbers and living standards should prove the Earth can support present or larger numbers sustainably, or are you prepared to concede the point?

Yes, I understand the difference. I also know the essential resources are very very very far from depletion.

And I also believe that the fact that our numbers and living standards are gowing up continuely for milenia, and present no sign of reverting that tendency, is at leats a hint that resources are far from depletion.

Whether true or not, this is irrelevant.

Indeed. If you check the first post I made which contained this subject, you will notice that I said "but this for another debat". By that I meant that this is totally irrelevant to the present debate.

 

[Little Raven]

Hmmm, I'm surprised a little bit by the posts of Little Raven.
I thought he was a libertarian and now he's worried about depletion (and rightly so).

I somehow gave the impression I was libertarian?

Definately not. Which isn't to say I don't agree with some of what they have to say.

I personally don't believe that a free market can resolve the issues of depletion. Government interference is necessary in such cases.

I think the Tragedy of the Commons makes the need for government interference quite clear. The question, of course, is how to use the tools government provides us most efficiently.

 

[luiz]

Those are deepwater reserves. We can't get at those cheaply, at least not yet. In fact, in many cases, we can't get to them at all.
Even if we can figure out a way to get at them, extracting that oil is going to take a lot of energy, which means our overall energy efficiency goes down. Remember, peak oil isn't about running out of oil, it's about running out of cheap oil.

Petrobras made some ground-breaking developments in deep-water oil prospection. Virtually 100% of Brazil's oil comes from deep waters, and they have a competitive price. And we are nearly self-suficient in oil.
I think that's a clear exemple of adapting to the circumstances. Brazil had no easy oil, like our neigbours Argentina, Venezuela or Colombia. So when the international prices went up in the 70's, we had to deal with our own oil. After years of development, we have a very nice technology regarding deep water prospection.
It's no wonder that they are the most interested in the angolan oil.

That said, at some point oil will no longer be the most viable alternative.

So basically, you're betting that we'll find a replacement for oil. That's a reasonable position, though certainly debatable. But here's the catch: What if we don't? Assume, just for a moment, that we cannot find a replacement for the energy we currently pull from hydrocarbons. What happens to our global society then?

If it happened suddenly, global economy would collapse.
But it won't, the prices will go gradually high and make investing in alternatives more attractive. Just like what happened to coal.

No, not really. The scale is different, the theory is much the same. Let's look at another case, that of Easter Island. Easter Island once boasted a thriving human community of over 7000 people. It was also a society based entirely upon wood.

Then they ran out of trees. Within a few generations, the population had collapsed to less than half of their previous number, and were engaged in nearly perpetual warfare and even cannibalism.

We have a mighty civilization that spans the world, but it runs on oil. Take the oil away, and everything...from transportation to medical care to food...disappears. How long do you think we could keep our current numbers if that happened? And don't you think that if oil ever started getting low, the US army would seize Venezuela and happily kill anyone who tried to prevent what oil remained from going to the US?

Scales matter alot in said discussion. It's easy to take out a spot from a map, but not something that occupies virtually all map.

As for oil beign the spine of the world. At one point, so was coal. But we found something better and moved on. We did not just waited while the coal was the depleated.

Oh, we've climbed very high, luiz, no doubt about that. But our spire is built on a single spar...black gold. If we lose it, we fall.Maybe they can be replaced. Maybe they can't. We won't know until we replace them...or don't. But if you're not worried about oil, here's something else to chew on.

Maybe you can live without your car. How long can you live without water?

As I said to TLC, access to water is a matter of money, not of water. We have a virtually infinite source of water right besides us - the sea. The saudis are already using sea water for consumption. It's still an expensive procedure, sure. But that's for now.

 

[luiz]

It's actually quite the opposite. I would advise you to read The Earth Transformed. It contains plenty of examples of how human activity is destroying the biosphere. If you don't want to buy that book, get it from a library or something...

Human activity damages the biosphere, I don't deny that. But it's not destroying it, and is not putting at stake the susteinability of our numbers.

Blah blah blah. See above.

Prove me wrong.

A logical fallacy: if they falsely predicted in the 60's that oil will run out, it doesn't mean the today's predictions are false.

And yet it sure makes sense to take those people with many grains of salt. They say the same things, they share a similar agenda.

At least a chart in The Earth Transformed says that 4.5% of terrestial net primary primary production are lost due to desertification, and a total of 8% of NPP are lost due human activity. (although that figure is 10 years old, so it's nowadays a higher number)

Nonsense. Where exactly is that desertification gowing on(other then a few already semi-deserted areas that use extremely outdated agricultural technology)

It would a lot simpler just to decrease consumption and/or population, would it?

And stop progress? No.
I like to consume alot and I won't deny anyone the right to have kids. So I rather continue on our current path.

In 50 years, when none of the catastrophes you people are predicting come true, there will be still people predicting other global hecatombs. That's the way the world goes.

 

[luiz]

I think the [url=http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/commons.htm]Tragedy of the Commons[/url] makes the need for government interference quite clear. The question, of course, is how to use the tools government provides us most efficiently.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly I see the Tragedy of the Commons as a powerful argument [i]for[/i] private property and [i]against[/i] the communal use of land.