Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:37 PM Tuesday 5/13/2008, jon louis mann wrote: > > >> we should be able to use technology >> to level living standards, and improve the quality of life, >> > > > > But as Keith said, the people at the "Club of Rome"/"Limits to > Growth" meeting didn't want to hear that. They specifically are > among the elites in the environmental movement about whom I have been > "ranting" since 1975 and even earlier . . . ;) > The Club of Rome was clearly wrong in a number of ways, but it may matter *how* they were wrong. As I posted earlier, they failed to consider some fairly well known economic principles about how markets respond to price changes. They did a simplistic straight-line projection of resource consumption in comparison to known deposits/reserves, and then concluded that these deposits/reserves would be gone within a relatively short time. This ignores several factors:
1) As supplies fall relative to demand, prices will rise. 2) As prices rise, consumers will find ways to economize so straight-line projections of demand cannot be accurate. 3) As prices rise, previously un-economic deposits/reserves become economic, thus increasing supply. 4) As prices rise, there is a strong incentive for increased exploration for new supplies. 5) As prices rise, there is an economic incentive to look for substitutes and for technical research in alternatives. All of these things did in fact happen in response to the oil price increases of the 1970s. Consumers did begin to demand more fuel efficient automobiles, appliances started to get energy usage labels, proven reserves of oil automatically increased as marginal deposits became profitable, new oil fields were found and developed, and alternative energy supplies received increased funding for research, and became cheaper to provide as a result. All of these things together resulted in a collapse of oil prices in the 1980s. This collapse is what caused the slow-down in research and funding for alternative energy sources; there was no longer a strong economic incentive to pursue this type of research. Of course, economic factors operate in reverse. As prices fell, people started buying gas-guzzlers again, and demand resumed going up. The SUVS were a result. Of course, that sets the stage for another round of prices increases, as we have seen. (Obviously, the war in Iraq and demand from industrializing countries are also important factors here.) In the latest reports I have seen, you can get a great deal on a used SUV; lots of people want to sell them, and there are few buyers. Now, do we conclude from this that there are *no* limits to growth? I think not. Just because the Club of Rome had a flawed analysis does not mean that there are no limits. What does the analysis look like if we say that resources will never completely run out, but will instead become progressively more expensive? Does paying $10/gallon for gas look a lot better than running out? How about $20/gallon? At what prices is gas effectively unobtainable to most people? Further, as I have argued, there is a growing crisis over water supplies. This is a renewable resource, of course. but there are serious issues about the rate of use relative to the rate of replenishment. >> instead of >> for spreading conspicuous consumption, waste and poillution to third >> and fourth world countries... >> > > > > I agree. I think there technological fixes are possible that can > bring "less developed" (which I think is the current PC term for what > used to be called "third world" and "fourth world") countries up to a > par with developed countries without the amount of pollution and > waste and such which accompanied the rise of the first people to get > to that level. No, I can't list them here now because I think many > of them need to be developed. I do think that like many other things > (frex the overworked examples of the Manhattan Project and putting a > man on the Moon) they are the kind of things which _can_ be developed > if we as humanity in general and the appropriate leaders (government, > business, religious and other charitable organizations, etc.) in > specific set the goal of raising everyone up to equality without > waste, including frex steps such as sharing new technology with > everyone rather than looking for the way to maximize profit from and > power over their customers. Obviously it will take a shift in the > mindset of many toward altruism rather than selfishness, but that > mindset shift is what we should be doing anyway as "members of a > civilization." > > > Idealistic List Conservative (And Yes Non-Evil Religion Contributes > To Making Me That Way) Maru > That is going to take a *lot* of technology, and it will all need to be paid for. And I have trouble seeing this happen while also reducing/minimizing the profit incentive. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students." -- John Ciardi _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
