This is a true question; I have not made my mind up about this. To keep things simple I first limit the question to resources which can be mined.
As I understand the common error of Greens and the “Club of Rome” is to mix up resources and reserves. While resources are defined as what is accessible by current price, reserves are what is known to be there. If you add reserves of metal which are for example located in space or in the deep core of earth there should be no problem here.
When demand outstrips supply prices will raise so that more ores can be mined economically. That means some of what was termed as reserve now moves into the resource category.
Now here is the problem: The reason why some ores can not be mined economically is because they are either not concentrated enough or because they are located too deep. In both cases mining such resources will not only increase the price but also the energy consumption of the mining operation.
What happens if the price of energy is constantly rising faster than that of ALL other resources? Will resources now be limited or decrease?
If you lump in the whole universe, then resources become more or less unlimited. The thing that is very limited though is our time, which is where prices come from.
If the price of energy keeps rising faster than that of all other resources, then we’ll become increasingly carefull with it. Ultimately our standards of living could go down because of it. This seems very unlikely though. Nuclear power has been very underutilized and underdeveloped because of government intervention, and why would we expect to come up with no solutions if the whole world would be looking for a good energy source?
Can you reach them? If not, then they are limited to you. Also, you used “maybe”. If you don’t know for sure, doesn’t that mean the extent of your knowledge is very limited?
Resources occupy space and time. Thus, they are unique whether someone owns them or not. Where there is an atom of gold, cannot be an atom of hydrogen. Where there is an atom of iron there cannot be an atom of magnesium.
Can you reach them? If not, then they are limited to you. Also, you used “maybe”. If you don’t know for sure, doesn’t that mean the extent of your knowledge is very limited?
Your slight jabs aside, that is the point I was getting at in my next sentence. It doesn’t matter if the scarcity is real or not, many things make infinite things finite to the individual.
I could be passive aggressive too, but I don’t want to stoop to that level
Resources are as limited or unlimited as we choose them to be - when a resource becomes more expensive relative to other resources, we will switch and use the cheaper resource.
Unless we are forced by some government body to not use a certain resource.
The sheer volume of talk about energy, energy prices, and energy policy on both sides of the political aisle suggests that we must know something about these subjects. But according to Peter Huber and Mark Mills, the things we “know” are mostly myths. They explain why demand will never go down, why most of what we think of as “energy waste” actually benefits us; why more efficient cars, engines, and bulbs will never lower demand, and why energy supply is infinite. In the automotive sector, gas prices matter less and less, and hybrid engines will most likely lead us to cars propelled by the coal-fired grid. As for the much-maligned power grid itself, it’s the worst system we could have except for all the proposed alternatives. Expanding energy supplies mean higher productivity, more jobs, and a growing GDP. Across the board, energy isn’t the problem, energy is the solution.
I know, that is why you should stop doing it. Is your perception so lacking that you did not see the passive aggressive jab I layed in response to yours?
Well, scarcity does matter. Reality does in fact matter.
If there’s a pill for immortality, and I have absolutely no access to it, it doesn’t matter to me.
I’d like you to focus on how two different forms of matter can occupy the same space at the same time.
I can focus on it all I want, it still won’t happen. I mean, I could fuse them, but that would release a large amt of energy, and change the physical state of the matter. What I want you to do is stop trying to twist my words into something that had nothing to do with my statement.
If you weren’t so hostile you would see that what I say is perfectly applicable. Even if resources are entirely infinite, if the individual does not have access to them, they are finite for him.
@OP: We can answer your questions just by looking at the laws of physics. First of all, mass and energy are conserved, which means that they are finite. You cannot wave a magic wand and bring physical resources into existence. Second, the human economy - which is just a piece of the Earth’s biosphere - is constrained by the second law of thermodynamics. The entire biosphere, including the human economy, can be thought of, for the purposes of physical analysis, as a giant heat engine. The Carnot limit means that we cannot get as much work energy out of the human economy as was put into it. Some losses are inevitable and these losses are expended as waste heat which increases the entropy of the planet. This is why pollution is an inevitable by-product of all economic activity (it’s also why the idea that there is “green” or “clean” energy is total BS).
Finally, the human economy is utilizing a tiny fraction of the total available energy budget of the planet (174 petawatts). Compared to our ancestors, we live in an era of energy super-abundance, an era which isn’t even close to ending, Chicken Little alarmism on the “energy crisis” notwithstanding.
I am not going to cry out like a child “you started it.”
My posts were perfectly clear, whether or not the scarcity is real, if the individual has no acces it is scarce to him (artificial scarcity). In fact, I have made this point before (probably in response to you).
Your deliberate attempts to allude to my ignorance or unintelligence is very unappealing, so I jested back. I see that would only push your shenanigans further now.
There is no defending “arguments” with you. There is only defending myself from you calling me stupid, like a child.
You took my argument, said the same thing, and that I was stupid for saying it.
My point; even if resources are infinite, it doesn’t matter to the individual that has no access to it; i.e. systems of ownership for one (as you pointed out, laws of physics for two).
Your point; You are ignorant. The laws of physics restrict infinity. How could you be so stupid not to see that?
Can you reach them? If not, then they are limited to you. Also, you used “maybe”. If you don’t know for sure, doesn’t that mean the extent of your knowledge is very limited?
I know what you’re saying; "even information is physically scarce. It completely missed the point of my post (and by your history, I have to believe was intentional). Anybody with even a 12th grade reasoning could see the unneccesary nature of that passive aggressive jab right there
That’s pretty basic stuff…
Taken in context with the above quote, it is perfectly clear what you meant here. You’re about as predictable as the sunrise.
That’s a statement about epistemology, not appealing to any insecurity you may have.
Since you have the above quote, is it still perfectly clear? Or did I mean, two atoms cannot occupy the exact same space at the exact same time, and that is “pretty basic stuff” in the world of science.
Anyway, I’m done. I’m interested in talking about resources. I am not interested in talking about your feelings.