<NY Times Energy Series: Nuclear The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 24, 2006>
<DrumBeat: August 22, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 24, 2006>

389 comments on DrumBeat: August 23, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on August 23, 2006 - 12:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The argument, basically, is about whether Americans are using more than their share of resources.  Obviously, we are.  And Malthus isn't necessarily going to fix that.  

No, I think what will fix it is the market.  We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world.  That won't go on forever.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on August 23, 2006 - 1:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
what will fix it is the market

No. what will "fix" it is war.
(It being America's taking of 25% of resource flow in comparison to her 8% rank in world population)

You forget that we are the "ownership society"

We "own" all the resources of the world and if they don't hand the stuff over to us, we go to fight them "over there" for it before they fight us over here.

Our notion of being the "ownership society" will end when we are bankrupted by our nonprofitable military adventures or when "they who hate our freedom to take what we want" vanquish us militarily.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
earldaily on August 23, 2006 - 1:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"the meek shall inherit the earth. but not it's mineral rights"
J. Paul Getty
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on August 24, 2006 - 2:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Depends on what you mean by 'meek'. If it's blue green algae, then they may not care about mineral rights.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on August 23, 2006 - 1:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, I still disagree. How is the market going to equitably distribute resources? There is nothing equitable or egalitarian about the market. The market is a very unfair system of distribution because he with the most money gets the most goodies. If everything is left to the market, some will always have an unfair share of resources. (Fair in a moral sense I am speaking of. But actually in nature there is no such thing as fair or unfair.)

There is nothing inherent in the market that will assist the current have nots to become equal with the haves. While it may be true that we will not always have more than our fair share, the market will not be the instrument that changes that. In fact, if it is ever changed it will be in spite of the market, not because of it.

And you said, in your previous post, that the market will also take care of the overpopulation problem. It is the principles of Malthus that will eventually fix that problem, not the market. What the market will do is insure that those with the most have the best chance of survival. Very unfair but that is just the difference between the market and Malthus. (Again, fair only in the moral sense.)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on August 23, 2006 - 1:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
How is the market going to equitably distribute resources?

Who said anything about equitable?  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on August 24, 2006 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>Well, I still disagree. How is the market going to equitably distribute resources? There is nothing equitable or egalitarian about the market

Utimately the rules of nature and the market system is connected. I can best summarize the connection between markets and nature by borrowing the title of Darwins famous book "Survival of the fittest". Those without wealth, resources or can't adapt will suffer and probably die off.

The rules of survival, the market, and natural selection are all the related. People that can adapt and have access to the necessary resources will survive. Those without will perish. We can see this all the time in business. Successful businesses that provide good or services that meet the demands of tje market survive and flourish, those that don't go bankrupt. Businesses also need to adapt to the changing market. For instance during much of the 20th century, camera film manufactures and processors flourished. Kodak was part of the dow 30 for many decades. When film was replaced by digital photography, these companies no longer served the market. Some adapted and some went bankrupt.

Market forces will bring about changes, but they aren't going to save humanity from the trouble ahead. The only option is to adapt or die. Those that believe that Communism and socialism can solve the problem are dead wrong. Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago. During this time, nature has never developed an eco. system based upon the ideas of communism. It has always been based upon a market system and always will be. In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on August 24, 2006 - 2:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago.

No, "the market" is a much too coarse approximation of Darwinian selection AND vice-versa!
Survival of the fitest does NOT have the same meaning in these two cases.

This is all because of several reasons, among which :
- In nature more is not necessarily better.
- In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
- In nature cooperation between individuals, groups, species and even across genres (bees / flowers) is regulated by hard-wired mechanisms which evolve only VERY slowly, like our "basic instincts".
In the market these are replaced by the rule of law which can be arbitrarily crazy and changing fast.
Never had a tax rebate repealed or the like?

In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.

Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
The market does not appear to be sustainable in a FINITE RESSOURCES environment neither are "Communism and socialism" which are just a reframing of the growth trend with more "equity".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on August 24, 2006 - 4:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".

Your absolutely correct. Althought I was just refering to the rules that that they share, such as the rules of supply and demand. If a required resource becomes depleted, it becomes expensive to obtain. For in a drought, food and water are harder to obtain for both man and animals. More labor or energy is required to obtain adquite supplies to sustain life. A society, herd, or even single cell organisms either adapt or fight to obtain what remains. These rules apply to business, societies, or even single cell organisms. The market system isn't fair nor is survival fair.

>Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.

We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system. FWIW: If I had some sort of magic wand I would use it to waive all these problems away.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on August 24, 2006 - 10:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system.

Most probably, any other idea beside the "magic wand" ?
Prayer, Rapture, Singularity, Armageddon, Nukular, what's you pick?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TechGuy on August 24, 2006 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
>No, I think what will fix it is the market.  We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world.  That won't go on forever.

Darwinian is right:

When the US is no longer able to import the required amount of fossil fuels, Americans will start to use what ever fuel is available. That being trees, coal, garbage, etc. What ever they can use to heat their homes and run the power grid. Search the financial websites for growth in wood pellet stoves and coal consumption to see that its already begining.

A decline in oil and gas imports will be the beginning of the biggest ecological disaster in history. FWIW: The entire Northeast of the United States was deforested by the beginning of the 20th Century (mostly for heating and steam power). Since that time, the land has recovered because Oil and Gas was cleaner and cheaper than wood and coal. You could say that Oil and Gas production came in the nick of time to prevent a real disaster. This time there is no new source of energy to save us.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

389 comments on DrumBeat: August 23, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.