…we would need 5 planets.
What is the refutation to this argument? It’s also difficult to understand exactly what this argument mean.
that’s because it’s not an argument, it’s a statement.
…we would need 5 planets.
What is the refutation to this statement? It’s also difficult to understand exactly what this statement mean.
[:D]
Are you also assuming these people would produce as much as Americans or simply consume as much? If they produced as much we wouldn’t need the other planets. Problem solved.
I think the major point is that the natural resources would be all consumed.
What is a natural resource? You mean like that black goo that lowers your property value? In the 19th century people would have hated to find oil on their land because it is dangerous and dirty. Back then whale oil was the natural resource that was needed for energy. Why is it that we don’t worry about whale oil runing out now? When demand changes and prices increase it provides incentive for people to conserve as well as new firms to be created and new technologies developed. To assume that changing one part of the economy (for instance the consumption of some natural resource) doesn’t change other parts is extremely naive.
Double post.
The unproven never needs to be refuted.
Well, I gave it a go anyway.
I am curious as to how the equation EVERYONE + (CONSUMPTION x Americans) = 5 Planets works.
If our technology remains the same and the resources are indeed finite and everyone in the world becomes an equal consumer of resources then wouldn’t the price of resources rise to the point where Americans would have to consume less than they do now?
Triple post.
Where have we heard this before?
The non-renewable natural resources you mean. Anyway, these tend not to be a problem because there are a lot of variable offsetting it: like speculation, alternatives getting cheaper in comparison, recycling becoming more profitable, and investment being made into existing bleeding edge infrastructure or into research to create better capital, substitutes and etc.
Anyway, as some resource get scarcer, and we need to drill deeper to get them, use some alternative and etc, that means we’ll be paying more for them – if they were cheaper, we’d be already using them already – which will mean people will have to either work harder if they wish to keep their current consumption level, or work the same and reduce their consumption level. Likely, they’ll do a mixture of the two.
The reason why Americans get to consume so much of international resources is from all the production of the past and present. The value of the US Dollar might be an indicator though that the situation may change in favor of countries like China.
First, don’t do that. Seriously.
“The natural resources” would be consumed, obviously. They would not, however, be depleted.
Its an objective fact that this planet is barely tapped in terms of its resources.
Quadruple post.
I not in favor of that statement, it’s just that this is what people say, especially the teachers at my university [:@] , together if other stupid things like the end of jobs because of machines [:@] [:@] [:@]
I think resources getting higher in price and recycling and other alternatives getting viable indeed answer it all. Thx.
Here is my argument as to why the statement above is not true nor can be true.
There is not enough wealth to support all humans living like Americans given current technology. As the rest of the world increases consumption resources become scarcer and therefore more expensive. The humans across the world will bid up resources until there are some humans who can not afford to pay. There is no way around this other than to ration resources but that not possible either as there is no person or persons or person with computer or persons with computers who can allocate the vast resources to provide all the stuff Americans consume.
The inverse of running out of resources is also false. That is if the Earth had 5 times the natural resources currently available the rest of the world could not live at the status of the USA. The lifestyle of the USA depends on the division of labor at current technology as well. As the rest of the world becomes wealtheir it will take more wealth to pay the labor resources to perform the same functions provided by less wealth folks at cheaper prices.
Please note: All of this is predicated on current technology. The technology 200 years ago could not support this number of people on the planet. In the future all humans will live as Americans do today.
What does it mean for everyone to consume like Americans? Does it mean that, like Americans, everyone would consume more than they produce? That would be impossible even with 5 planets.
If pink camels ride donkeys…
…we shouldn’t wake the sleeping princess.
What is the refutation to this argument? It’s also difficult to understand exactly what this argument mean.