X-Message-Number: 24236 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:56:42 +1000 From: Philip Rhoades <> Subject: Re: Oil depletion References: <> <> See inline comments: > Message #24222 > Subject: Oil depletion > From: Michael Hartl <> > Date: 10 Jun 2004 18:59:43 -0700 > > Readers of this list have a vested interest in understanding any > factors which might make the future much better or much worse than it > is > today, Very true. > since many of us plan to be around when it happens. As a > result, > the issue of oil depletion is a relevant topic for discussion. Among > other things, if civilization faces possible collapse in 50 years > because we run out of oil One reason it might happen. > -- as some serious thinkers have proposed it certainly has > implications for the potential success of cryonics. True again. > Most people, and especially most scientists, don't have a good > understanding of economics, And most economists don't have a good understanding of science - particularly things like long-term biological/ecological effects of "economic" decisions. > and as a result there is much confusion > on > the subject of oil depletion. And there is much obfuscation of the really important (survival) issues eg biological diversity, drastic climate change etc by "important" economic issues. . . clipped stuff on Law of Diminishing Returns > Despite diminishing returns, human beings > are materially much better off now than our ancestors were, simply > because we are so much more productive. It is worth reflecting on > how > remarkable this is, and how contrary it is to our naive intuition. Materially better off maybe (in the developed West at least) but biologically and environmentally poorer and rapidly getting poorer still. . . clipped stuff on free markets etc. > (As an aside, I should note that petroleum has costs not reflected in > its current price, most notably the cost of pollution and the taxes > spent on military efforts to maintain stability in the oil-rich > Middle > East. It would probably be a step forward to include these costs in > the > price of oil somehow, such as a special tax on gasoline; alternative > sources still wouldn't be price-competitive, but the cross-over point > would certainly come sooner.) This is an important point but how do you measure all the costs? As an extreme example, if exploiting a particular resource means the destruction of a particular unique biological environment which means the extinction of a species that could have provided a drug for cheap and reliable suspended animation - has the extra few barrels of oil been worth it? - the economists will say it was. How do you measure the wide-ranging costs of loss of biological diversity? > Improvements in the productivity of labor, as the result of > specialization and improving technology, have always allowed humanity > to > overcome the Law of Diminishing Returns. It is possible that oil > will > be the exception; perhaps no one will figure out how to make tar > sands > a > viable resource, or perhaps a "major breakthrough" in alternative > energy > won't occur. Given the historical evidence, though, the onus is on > those who think oil is different from other resources to prove their > case. Moreover, for those who are optimistic enough to think that > disaster might be averted somehow, the onus is on them to show that > their preferred solution is better than the one provided by free > markets > and the price system. This is missing the big question - not will the "free-market" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) find a way to keep us all in the style to which we have become accustomed (in the West) but will we, as a species, survive the drastic changes to the biosphere we are wreaking? There are maybe 10 million species on the planet, at best maybe one million is documented in any form. The numbers are going down drastically before we even know that they exist and what functions they perform in keeping everything working . . > When allowed to interact in free markets, human beings have shown a > remarkable ability to overcome all manner of challenges, including > the > supposed depletion of natural resources. In the history of the planet we have never been in this situation before, the environment and climate in particular have metastable states and can "flip" quickly - small changes can have large consequences - we just don't know enough. We are having a party in a train that is going faster and faster, the people on board don't know that our increasing speed is going to give us less chance of stopping before we get to the bridge that has been washed away . . We should be more careful. Phil. -- Philip Rhoades Pricom Pty Limited (ACN 003 252 275 ABN 91 003 252 275) GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia Mobile: +61:0411-185-652 Fax: +61:2:8923-5363 E-mail: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24236