I thought the increase in demand came from the lower prices. If efficiency increases but total output and price remains relatively stable (as in, a resource is actually running out but the increased efficiency with which the resource is harvested/mined/refined etc. is enough to offset the lowering of supply) then demand would surely remain stable?
If efficiency increases, prices would go down, enticing more marginal users to engage in purchasing.
What happens when scarcity is greater than the increases in efficiency?
Going into the woods is pure freedom. I was in the woods all today and never felt freer. Way better then living in civilization. And 100% non-aggressive too.
You’re hilarious. If it’s so great, stop being a hypocrite and typing on a computer inherently connected to civilization. Live out your values. The rest of us know that living in concert with other human beings is a massive survival and productivity advantage. And still possible to do so 100% aggression-free.
And still possible to do so 100% aggression-free.
Wrong. Civ REQUIRES aggression in order to sustain itself. Agriculture and dependence on ag caused states (violent monopolies) to form AND invade other lands. Ag destroys the land its done upon so the only way to keep ag going is to take over more virgin lands. This was the cause of all early state warfare. As long as there’s a civ there will be massive amounts of aggression.
The rest of us know that living in concert with other human beings is a massive survival and productivity advantage.
Also 100% wrong. Civ is not sustainable. Even tho state violence has made civ last a lot longer then it would have otherwise it’s still headed towards collapse. It’s way better to learn survival skills NOW and start living off-the-grid.
If it’s so great, stop being a hypocrite and typing on a computer inherently connected to civilization.
Why don’t you try to live as state-free as possible?
You’re conflating states and aggression. It’s possible for a state to exist without aggressing against its citizens or anyone else. Agriculture does not ‘destroy the land’, whatever that means. It’s impossible to survive without being a burden on other species. You may as well claim that breathing destroys air.
Sustainable? Course it is. Just because eventually a society chooses policies which lead it to collapse doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable, but rather that it’s possible to crash and eventually they do.
Way better? In what world? It would only be ‘way better’ if society had already crashed. Even when society’s -do- crash economically, it’s often better to stick with people still.
Actually I’m not an advocate of state-free living, but rather of an essentialist state, a minimum state. And I’m in planning stages to build an essentialist government off-shore. If one existed already, I’d be there.
You already have woods, why aren’t you living in them full time. Every post on this forum is a violation of what you say is ‘way better’.
You’re conflating states and aggression. It’s possible for a state to exist without aggressing against its citizens or anyone else. Agriculture does not ‘destroy the land’, whatever that means.
Wrong. All you need to do is google ‘is agriculture sustainable?’ and you’ll find all your answers there.
Ag means wiping the land of all living things in order to grow grains and other domesticated plants. This means the soil ends up being destroyed. The only reason ag continues is b/c fossil fuels are able to be turned into fertilizers, BUT that’s not going to last much longer. Peak oil is around the corner and this will mean a massive die-off of most of the human race since so much of it is dependent on ag to survive.
Sustainable? Course it is. Just because eventually a society chooses policies which lead it to collapse doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable, but rather that it’s possible to crash and eventually they do.
Your not giving me any evidence. I want to know why you think civ can survive (esp. w/o aggression) when I’ve given you all the reasons otherwise.
If agriculture wasn’t sustainable, we wouldn’t be alive right now. Come on. We’ve been farming for thousands of years. It’s freakin’ sustainable.
Lol, you’re hilarious. We already have oil replacements waiting in the wing. Biodiesel for instance. Solar for another. We’ll be replacing oil, coal, and gas as primary energy producers I’d say within the next 25 years, as prices come down as enabled by tech.
We’ve had uninterrupted history since, well, the beginning of history. That’s proof enough for me.
Oh, wow, this is rich.
If agriculture wasn’t sustainable, we wouldn’t be alive right now. Come on. We’ve been farming for thousands of years. It’s freakin’ sustainable.
Just because a glider thrown off a cliff hasn’t hit the ground yet doesn’t mean it won’t eventually. The only reason ag is still around is because states took over new lands and forced the local populations into an agricultural system. The whole middle east is a desert b/c of millennia of ag.
Lol, you’re hilarious. We already have oil replacements waiting in the wing. Biodiesel for instance. Solar for another. We’ll be replacing oil, coal, and gas as primary energy producers I’d say within the next 25 years, as prices come down as enabled by tech.
Biodiesel = ag. And the reason no one wants wind/solar power is because they suck. And how can biodiesel be turned into fertilizers to sustain industrial ag?
I found video of F4M IRL!!!:
F4M: Why did you never tell us your IRL handle is Cuervo??
Clayton -
Cell phones: 50% increase in tumors in children
Still think tech is a miracle?
[quoteuser=“Anenome”]
You’re hilarious. If it’s so great, stop being a hypocrite and typing on a computer inherently connected to civilization.
[/quote]
So, you don’t use any publicly subsidized services? I assume you are against coercion.
Two words. Property Tax. It is extremely difficult not to be a wage slave and not be a criminal.
No argument here.
Mmm… not so sure about that one.
But it is possible to survive without destroying our landbase’s carrying capacity, which would include wiping out keystone ecological species.
Not even close to a reasonable analogy.
Not from what I can tell. Check it.
For you, maybe. I’d rather have clean air, water, food, and shelter, and not be a wage slave.
In fact, many European settlers deserted colonies to join the natives.
It’s called a “raft”. Not sure if you’ve heard of them? Make your dream a reality! That’s basically what you are saying to F4M right now.
No. We have just been able to outpace the collapse. We are running out of places to run, though.
Fossil fuels are just stored solar energy. It seems quite the vote of confidence to assume that we will be able to extract enough energy every day from the Sun to sustain our current energy consumption.
1/400,000th of the Earth’s history is an adequate sample size for you? Maybe 1/20th of humanity’s existence?
^Child mortality rates have certainly been dropping over time, and are lowest in countries with the most technology.
^Child mortality rates have certainly been dropping over time, and are lowest in countries with the most technology.
How many of those kids have autism? How many of those kids will become obese? How does that compare to kids elsewhere?
[quoteuser=“Rorschach”]
Child mortality rates have certainly been dropping over time, and are lowest in countries with the most technology.
[/quote]
The result? Let Darwin work!
Well… They’re ALIVE.
Obsese? For 99% of recorded history, children primarily died young… from starvation.