Scarcity, Surplus and Space

[Dan5]

I think I may have finally got Peterson and out thought him and exposed him- I don't think he has any logic left- his logic has so many holes you can drive a freight train through it. His last comment was about how we do not have enough resources to give to everyone to make e-bikes, EVs, washing machines, etc, etc, and my response was :

"What you are suggesting is a resource limited economy. The caveat to that is that people's ingenuity usually prevails in a resource limited economy and they find uses for other materials which they would not have found viable before. The good part about the batteries in EVs is that their are a few types of competing chemistries, some phospahte polymer bases, some titanium, some cobalt, some nickel and who knows what else. The point is that if people start grabbing the material to make one not economically viable, you can use another one, and so on and so forth.
I'll give you an example in another industry- Soda, specifically Coke and Pepsi, sugar became too expensive so the used HFCS, now sugar is coming down so they are using sugar, if both went up in price, they would use another sweetner. Pepsi is not going to go bankrupt or stop making products because the Chinese started freebasing sugar or they started using HFCS on a massive scale. Corn is limited from a land perspective, ideal land to grow sugar is limited. Same argument can be made. A hundred asians who develop a taste for sugar smacks is NOT going to affect my need for a soda, worse comes to worse, they change the formulation and get it to taste similar to the old way."

I should have added that there is only enough sugar to supply every man, woman, and child on earth with enough calories for 48 days and change if it was only used to "feed" people, and no waste, or provide 13% with enough calories for a year's worth of calories (assuming it's not used or wasted for other purposes) and that worldwide copper production would be able to provide enough copper (excluding recycled copper) to provide enough for EVs 5% of the world's population/year or 10% of compact cars (using JPs numbers)- if you factor in the percentage of people who actually drive it pushes the numbers to 8.2% of the world population that could get NEW EVs per year (or around 573 million new EVs). The real number of new regular cars sold each year is around 60 Million.

[vfx]

Good one Dan.

And Recycling suger sounds gross.

[Citizen-T]

I think I may have finally got Peterson and out thought him and exposed him- I don't think he has any logic left- his logic has so many holes you can drive a freight train through it. His last comment was about how we do not have enough resources to give to everyone to make e-bikes, EVs, washing machines, etc, etc, and my response was :

"What you are suggesting is a resource limited economy. The caveat to that is that people's ingenuity usually prevails in a resource limited economy and they find uses for other materials which they would not have found viable before. The good part about the batteries in EVs is that their are a few types of competing chemistries, some phospahte polymer bases, some titanium, some cobalt, some nickel and who knows what else. The point is that if people start grabbing the material to make one not economically viable, you can use another one, and so on and so forth.
I'll give you an example in another industry- Soda, specifically Coke and Pepsi, sugar became too expensive so the used HFCS, now sugar is coming down so they are using sugar, if both went up in price, they would use another sweetner. Pepsi is not going to go bankrupt or stop making products because the Chinese started freebasing sugar or they started using HFCS on a massive scale. Corn is limited from a land perspective, ideal land to grow sugar is limited. Same argument can be made. A hundred asians who develop a taste for sugar smacks is NOT going to affect my need for a soda, worse comes to worse, they change the formulation and get it to taste similar to the old way."

I should have added that there is only enough sugar to supply every man, woman, and child on earth with enough calories for 48 days and change if it was only used to "feed" people, and no waste, or provide 13% with enough calories for a year's worth of calories (assuming it's not used or wasted for other purposes) and that worldwide copper production would be able to provide enough copper (excluding recycled copper) to provide enough for EVs 5% of the world's population/year or 10% of compact cars (using JPs numbers)- if you factor in the percentage of people who actually drive it pushes the numbers to 8.2% of the world population that could get NEW EVs per year (or around 573 million new EVs). The real number of new regular cars sold each year is around 60 Million.

Absolutely. I do not fear scarcity in a world with exponentially growing technologies.

[Robert.Boston]

JP probably was a card-carrying member of the Club of Rome 40 years ago.

[JRP3]

Absolutely. I do not fear scarcity in a world with exponentially growing technologies.

I'm not so sure. If those exponentially growing technologies cause an exponentially growing number of people to want and consume more materials, as will happen when they try to move from a subsistence lifestyle to more modern consumerism, resources may indeed become limited. Petersen is wrong that EV's consume more materials than ICE's, but he is correct that ultimately all materials are limited. A healthier longer lived world population striving for a "better" lifestyle may not regulate itself fast enough to prevent over consumption. A microcosm of that effect can be seen in the growing practice of shark fin harvesting for Chinese weddings. Shark fins were once a symbol of wealth and power that few could afford, with growing affluence more and more can afford it, there is a growing trade of finning, which just kills the sharks, and may ultimately cause mass extinctions. Shark free waters may sound good until you start to think about the imbalance that will occur with the removal of the apex predator of the oceans. BIODIVERSITY: As Sharks Vanish, Chaotic New Order Emerges - IPS ipsnews.net

[Grendal]

I'm not so sure. If those exponentially growing technologies cause an exponentially growing number of people to want and consume more materials, as will happen when they try to move from a subsistence lifestyle to more modern consumerism, resources may indeed become limited. Petersen is wrong that EV's consume more materials than ICE's, but he is correct that ultimately all materials are limited. A healthier longer lived world population striving for a "better" lifestyle may not regulate itself fast enough to prevent over consumption. A microcosm of that effect can be seen in the growing practice of shark fin harvesting for Chinese weddings. Shark fins were once a symbol of wealth and power that few could afford, with growing affluence more and more can afford it, there is a growing trade of finning, which just kills the sharks, and may ultimately cause mass extinctions. Shark free waters may sound good until you start to think about the imbalance that will occur with the removal of the apex predator of the oceans. BIODIVERSITY: As Sharks Vanish, Chaotic New Order Emerges - IPS ipsnews.net

Well said. And hence the need for SpaceX. Humanity needs to get off this planet and move into the vast environment of space. At 7 Billion people and growing it's very easy to use up a resource very quickly. There are plenty of resources "out there" and the sooner we get there the better.

[jerry33]

Well said. And hence the need for SpaceX. Humanity needs to get off this planet and move into the vast environment of space. At 7 Billion people and growing it's very easy to use up a resource very quickly. There are plenty of resouces "out there" and the sooner we get there the better.

+1 You got my vote.

[JRP3]

Well said. And hence the need for SpaceX. Humanity needs to get off this planet and move into the vast environment of space. At 7 Billion people and growing it's very easy to use up a resource very quickly. There are plenty of resouces "out there" and the sooner we get there the better.

Yes, but that is still a continuing escalation of energy and material intensive existence which simply moves the line further. I'm a fan of space exploration but a more rational approach would be to target population reduction and sustainability. There is no reason this planet can't support humanity for millions of years if it's managed properly.

[Norbert]

I think JP is simply trying to use arguments of EV proponents against themselves. His crusade against EVs is a waste of resources in itself.

[Grendal]

Yes, but that is still a continuing escalation of energy and material intensive existence which simply moves the line further. I'm a fan of space exploration but a more rational approach would be to target population reduction and sustainability. There is no reason this planet can't support humanity for millions of years if it's managed properly.

I understand and get your point but have a major problem with it. What about a farmer in China or India? Humanity can't sustain uncontrolled growth but what are you going to do to prevent a farmer in China from having kids? And the ability to do so would create a society that I would not want to live in. How do you convince China to do what you want? Reason with them? "See, it's what's best for you and me." What do you do about those that say no?

The more reasonable answer is to get off the planet and begin using the vast resources available off planet. The Earth should become a protected resource that humanity visits when they need to be on a planet. Elon makes an excellent point that confining yourself to one biosphere allows for a possibility of an extinction event that puts an end to the human race. Space is the only future for humanity and we need to start getting there.

At least that's my opinion.