I maintain that Malthus and Erlich were right but the timescales were too short. Most of our material resources are suffering from declining yields, requiring larger amounts of energy to capture and refine them. Then we come to the carbon pulse idea where we may be near the end of very cheap energy. Unless we can catapult ourselves off world to satisfy our need for rising resources we may find ourselves bereft of enough energy to find increasingly diluted resources using increasingly diluted energy sources.
There may be something I’m missing but we rely not only the social supercomputer but incredibly cheap concentrated energy. Oil may be infinite (abiotic theory) but so far the indicators are otherwise.
I am glad you brought this up, I have an essay coming on this very thing! Falling energy return on investment is an interesting topic and a possible counterpoint to what I have described here.
I do think it's possible, if we play our cards right, to find new sources of energy, however.
I tend to agree that we can find a way out. However I am pessimistic regarding the ability to summon the will. So far the social, political, and market signals run against restraint. What ever one thinks of the threat of global warming there has been significant effort to change our habits with an existential threat and it seems nothing has moved the needle.
The human race in 100 years will have to subsist on much lower energy consumption.
Kuznet’s curve seems simplistic and could be seen as good depending on where you find yourself on it. If the demand for resources continues to expand as it has historically you will be forced to destroy more of the environment to meet the demand. I suppose when it is all used up then we can see the backside of the curve. Sounds dystopian to me.
I understand that today in the US half the consumption is driven by the upper 10% of income earners. That doesn’t bode well for the creation of a larger wealthy class. What cost must the rest of us bear to meet this demand? Markets do not price such things.
My problem is I like living in a world with wild rivers, forests, and wilderness. It is why I live where I do. This probably makes me an unreasonable romantic to which I would say so be it I don’t care.
Homo Sapiens' innate altruism allowed our species to dominate all other species. In small, tribal groups, sharing and caring works to expand the species. Even in small agrarian villages the concept applies. As populations grow, however, the balance between altruism and avarice breaks down. My family must win over your family, my village over yours, my city, my country. Wealth accumulation facilitates this "winning". In large populations greed beats generosity every time.
The tide that lifted the poverty boats—the poor who live better than ancient kings—came not from human largess but from the discovery of cheap fossil fuels which begat cheap food which begat vast populations which begat skill specialization which begat medical and technological advancements. If coal and oil had never existed humanity would still be living 17th century lives of meager existence.
If everyone lives in poverty -- does anyone live in poverty?
I suppose it depends how we define poverty. Most wealthy countries today define "poverty" as something that is relative to the population living within its borders.
This is not true "poverty" in the sense that I understand it here.
Useful explorations that deserve wider discussion and awareness.
I learned that manufacturing is essentially the application of information (or knowledge) to the manipulation or transformation of materials. But a large portion of our abundance is related to the relative relationship between labor and capital [or perhaps better expressed as types of labor, since capital is the prior application of labor and capital and energy]. I hope you also explore the relative cost of the energy used to achieve this abundance vs. other costs [especially the capital abundance fraction].
It may be more difficult to figure out how to measure or gage quantitatively "human capital" as the knowledge learned and applied by people. Man years to learn a given body of knowledge? Or the number of years where that knowledge has been applied by a given person? Or??? At some point of physical wealth accumulation (aka "stuff"), the only really desirable addition to our "wealth" becomes increasing our human capital. (A good reason to read Risk and Progress!! :-) ).
I agree that we are led astray when we define "poverty" as some level of relative dollar income, rather than a set of wealth elements that constitute "normal" health, wealth, and some level of personal freedom. The "progressives" will always push for maintaining the relative measure so they can continue to claim the need to manage others to improve the lower group's position, but in fact they neglect to acknowledge the "progressive" achievements that have already been made.
If we defined poverty in "absolute" terms of some limited quantity of food, shelter, healthcare, transportation (?), and access to information, the poverty programs would, could, and should have been reduced or collapsed several decades ago. And even that absolute definition would change over time, but only as more in the larger population had access to those "core" elements.
If I remember correctly from college, our Ideas and Issues Committee brought Paul Ehrlichman to speak on his book, “The Population Bomb”, in the 1970’s. Other authors were concerned with human expansion and resource scarcity at that time. That said, “With knowledge, humans have overcome every material constraint they have encountered thus far.” And “Malthusians fail to appreciate the power of knowledge”….“ abundance increased because of, not despite, population growth. More people mean more nodes on the serial computer.”
We’re all billionaires now. Nice.
Basically, many of us at least.
A good article. Thanks.
I maintain that Malthus and Erlich were right but the timescales were too short. Most of our material resources are suffering from declining yields, requiring larger amounts of energy to capture and refine them. Then we come to the carbon pulse idea where we may be near the end of very cheap energy. Unless we can catapult ourselves off world to satisfy our need for rising resources we may find ourselves bereft of enough energy to find increasingly diluted resources using increasingly diluted energy sources.
There may be something I’m missing but we rely not only the social supercomputer but incredibly cheap concentrated energy. Oil may be infinite (abiotic theory) but so far the indicators are otherwise.
I am glad you brought this up, I have an essay coming on this very thing! Falling energy return on investment is an interesting topic and a possible counterpoint to what I have described here.
I do think it's possible, if we play our cards right, to find new sources of energy, however.
I tend to agree that we can find a way out. However I am pessimistic regarding the ability to summon the will. So far the social, political, and market signals run against restraint. What ever one thinks of the threat of global warming there has been significant effort to change our habits with an existential threat and it seems nothing has moved the needle.
The human race in 100 years will have to subsist on much lower energy consumption.
It might be that energy consumption will follow a Kuznets curve too, we just haven't seen the curve bend yet.
Kuznet’s curve seems simplistic and could be seen as good depending on where you find yourself on it. If the demand for resources continues to expand as it has historically you will be forced to destroy more of the environment to meet the demand. I suppose when it is all used up then we can see the backside of the curve. Sounds dystopian to me.
I understand that today in the US half the consumption is driven by the upper 10% of income earners. That doesn’t bode well for the creation of a larger wealthy class. What cost must the rest of us bear to meet this demand? Markets do not price such things.
My problem is I like living in a world with wild rivers, forests, and wilderness. It is why I live where I do. This probably makes me an unreasonable romantic to which I would say so be it I don’t care.
It's crazy when you look at it like this.
It really is. It changes your perspective...but we can still do so much better!
Homo Sapiens' innate altruism allowed our species to dominate all other species. In small, tribal groups, sharing and caring works to expand the species. Even in small agrarian villages the concept applies. As populations grow, however, the balance between altruism and avarice breaks down. My family must win over your family, my village over yours, my city, my country. Wealth accumulation facilitates this "winning". In large populations greed beats generosity every time.
The tide that lifted the poverty boats—the poor who live better than ancient kings—came not from human largess but from the discovery of cheap fossil fuels which begat cheap food which begat vast populations which begat skill specialization which begat medical and technological advancements. If coal and oil had never existed humanity would still be living 17th century lives of meager existence.
If everyone lives in poverty -- does anyone live in poverty?
I suppose it depends how we define poverty. Most wealthy countries today define "poverty" as something that is relative to the population living within its borders.
This is not true "poverty" in the sense that I understand it here.
Useful explorations that deserve wider discussion and awareness.
I learned that manufacturing is essentially the application of information (or knowledge) to the manipulation or transformation of materials. But a large portion of our abundance is related to the relative relationship between labor and capital [or perhaps better expressed as types of labor, since capital is the prior application of labor and capital and energy]. I hope you also explore the relative cost of the energy used to achieve this abundance vs. other costs [especially the capital abundance fraction].
It may be more difficult to figure out how to measure or gage quantitatively "human capital" as the knowledge learned and applied by people. Man years to learn a given body of knowledge? Or the number of years where that knowledge has been applied by a given person? Or??? At some point of physical wealth accumulation (aka "stuff"), the only really desirable addition to our "wealth" becomes increasing our human capital. (A good reason to read Risk and Progress!! :-) ).
I agree that we are led astray when we define "poverty" as some level of relative dollar income, rather than a set of wealth elements that constitute "normal" health, wealth, and some level of personal freedom. The "progressives" will always push for maintaining the relative measure so they can continue to claim the need to manage others to improve the lower group's position, but in fact they neglect to acknowledge the "progressive" achievements that have already been made.
If we defined poverty in "absolute" terms of some limited quantity of food, shelter, healthcare, transportation (?), and access to information, the poverty programs would, could, and should have been reduced or collapsed several decades ago. And even that absolute definition would change over time, but only as more in the larger population had access to those "core" elements.
If I remember correctly from college, our Ideas and Issues Committee brought Paul Ehrlichman to speak on his book, “The Population Bomb”, in the 1970’s. Other authors were concerned with human expansion and resource scarcity at that time. That said, “With knowledge, humans have overcome every material constraint they have encountered thus far.” And “Malthusians fail to appreciate the power of knowledge”….“ abundance increased because of, not despite, population growth. More people mean more nodes on the serial computer.”
Ideas multiplied bring solutions thinkers provide.