The Sky Is Falling, Again
Twenty-five years after Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich made their famous bet, people still don't get it. "Two-Thirds of World's Resources 'Used Up,'" screams the headline in today's Guardian (highlighted by Drudge). "The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries - some of them world leaders in their fields - today warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure." Fortunately, man's material condition is not primarily determined by geology (or geography), but by human action.
Comments (10)
The spectacular failure of Paul Ehrlich's predictions always make me giggle.
How about I make some too?:
In 50 years:
1. We will be more concerned about global birth rates being too low.
2. Paul Ehrlich (in his new cybernetic body) will still be telling us we're over-consuming.
Published: March 30, 2005 1:01 PM
There is something to be said about how high our time preferences are. We are using resources which are the cheapest to manipulate in the very short term, and the rate at which these resources are being used is being masked by state manipulations of money and energy prices. Technically we won't run out of resources, but everything can suddenly become a lot more expensive. I don't understand the blasé attitude towards our consumption of such resources considering they constitute part of our capital base. I expect a blog entry in the near future which laments our eroding capital base, and somehow this is not related?
How can we claim that we aren't living beyond our means when the economic calculation required to make such a judgment is nigh impossible in this interventionist market?
Published: March 30, 2005 1:46 PM
Even more elemental: I think Mother Earth doesn't care one way or another what we do. She will simply kill off a few billion of us until the "resources" are once again "sustainable."
Published: March 30, 2005 7:20 PM
"I don't understand the blasé attitude towards our consumption of such resources considering they constitute part of our capital base."
As a libertarian I don't think that anyone else's property (oil field, gas station, SUV, etc.) is part of "our" capital base. With your own capital base, you may invest in whatever type of resources you wish.
Published: March 30, 2005 8:40 PM
In the Province of Quebec a national commission has just stated that the local wood-cutting industries were cutting trees at a rate 20% exceeding a "sustainable" rate. The population all too convinced -now- that an immediate 20% cut back is necessary if we don't want to run short of forests in a near future is ready for a big slowdown with government money support to all parties. Am I mistaken or is it an other statist hoax?
Published: March 30, 2005 10:33 PM
"Am I mistaken or is it an other statist hoax?"
Marcel, I think the hoax in that instance is that the state pretends to own all the land in Quebec, and then grants logging "privileges" to the forestry industry. If people could own and log the land themselves, they would ensure sustainability on their own.
The state, unlike private landowners, might try preserving land because of political pressure of a vague sense of securing the future. The state has no financial incentive to preserve the forests, however.
Published: March 31, 2005 12:12 AM
Anarkhos, resources don't "suddenly" get expensive. As supplies dwindle, prices rise. It is only the distortions created by politicians that create such radical swings.
That is not to say that prices won't change, but when the sale price increases relative to the production price, it signals that there are profits to be made by undercutting the overpriced sellers.
Any particular "resource" may be depleted, certainly, but only to the degree that it becomes more expensive than its alternatives. Petroleum getting harder to supply and thus more expensive? Think atomics and "thermal depolymerization".
Published: March 31, 2005 9:11 AM
Curt, there is one market reality, not two. If prices are rising due to shortening supplies or realization that supplies have been short matters not. The "distortions" you're referring to don't just make things appear to suddenly become more expensive, they actually are.
Ohh Henry, Don't be so obtuse. If the capital accumulation of a farming community is measured by how much grain is in a silo, it matters not who owns the silo when the question at heart is if the price of grain has been manipulated so that more is being consumed than saved. Belonging doesn't have to be legal, it can mean inter-relation. Next time someone says "our food supply" I fully expect you to say "hup hup hup, I think you mean ADM's food supply".
The supply of oil (and the stated reserves) aren't market-driven. They are driven by short-term political aims. Who knows how much cheap oil is available. The states who may know this have an interest in overstating reserves so they can pump more than they would otherwise be allowed to by OPEC agreements. Even if their reserves were known, their ownership of these fields isn't guaranteed, especially if they try restricting supply again. Do you think the US government would keep the Saudis in power if they turned the spigot down? Its even public policy that the Saudis try to keep the price low. Do the princes really care if the price of oil triples decades in the future?
The same can be said to a lot of commodities which are being directly manipulated. Not only this, but the prices of all commodities have been suppressed for decades due to our credit binge. Not only has the gas gauge been manipulated, so have the mile markers on the highway. By the time we realize we don't have enough resources to reach the destination we're stranded.
We're drunk on credit and oil, the prices of both interlinked and the supply of either is widely unknown. I'm not saying the Guardian knows WTF they're talking about. All I'm saying is we don't have the ability to know any better in this interventionist market.
Published: March 31, 2005 9:21 PM
I was going to predict that in 50 years, Ehrlich himself will run out of resources but after reading Brian's post...I'm not so sure.
Published: April 1, 2005 4:16 PM
Those who remember Gerard K O'Neill and the L5 society will know where our resources will come from. 100 million asteroids, mars, mercury, venus, Etc. The carrying capacity of the solar system is estimated at 30 to 100 billion! All we need is funds for propulsion research.
Those who remember Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons will know where our energy will come from. Cold Fusion works! Fusion powered cars, planes, boats, subs, space craft, homes and everything else are just one investment away from reality. All we need is research capital and the government black list on research and patents lifted.
Published: April 4, 2005 7:28 AM