[Oldmanmatt]

That's true. My point, I suppose, is more esoteric.

They are not a unified group with clear leadership. Inherited wealth tends to begat idleness and diminution of wealth and ranking for the "family".
The self made drive to the top, often in opposition to each other and usually outstrip the inherited crew. Their term at the top is often ephemeral and their goals short term and selfish, rather than deliberately divisive.
In short, not a lot has changed since Imperial Rome.

Et tu Clegg?

[Oldmanmatt]

I'd go further...

We do not all live in the same world.

To quote Richard Bach.
“You’re sure of that. You live in the same world, do you, as... a stockbroker, shall we say? Your life has just been all tumbled and changed, I presume, by the new SEC policy - man- datory review of portfolios with shareholder investment loss more than fifty percent? You live in the same world as a tournament chess player, do you? With the New York Open going on this week, Petrosian and Fischer and Browne in Manhattan for a half- million-dollar purse, what are you doing in a hayfield in Maitland, Ohio? You with your 1929 Fleet biplane landed on a farm field, with your major life priorities farmers’ permission, people who want ten-minute airplane rides, Kinner aircraft engine maintenance and mortal fear of hailstorms... how many people do you think live in your world? You say four billion people live in your world? Are you standing way down there on the ground and telling me that four billion people do not live in four billion separate worlds, are you going to put that across on me?” He panted from his fast talking."

A little out of date (4 billion? Only thirty years ago? 7 now) but essentially the gist.
I've found the traditional priorities of life to be somewhat illusory.
Life really is what you make it and nothing has really changed in the "system", since it began.
The Information Age is certainly coming close to changing the system. Public opinion carries more clout (ask Max Clifford) and Western democracy provides limited control to the individual than has, perhaps, ever existed before.

[Sloper]

I can't be arsed to trawl through 15 pages, but in response to the premise, resources aren't finite and growth is now less dependent on resources than ever before.

[a dense loner]

Resources aren't finite? Wow! That's blind sided me

[Oldmanmatt]

Resources aren't finite? Wow! That's blind sided me

Well, he's got a point.

As long as we develop interstellar travel within my remaining life time....

[Sloper]

Resources aren't finite? Wow! That's blind sided me

It wasn't hard.

[Stubbs]

Go on then Slopes, elucidate on these infinite resources.

[andy popp]

Plus the whole of mainstream economics is predicated on resource scarcity.  Infinite resources = no markets, no price mechanism,  nothing.

[nik at work]

Apart from cake, there will always be cake.

[Sasquatch]

Which is why we all get to have it and eat it

[Sloper]

Go on then Slopes, elucidate on these infinite resources.

Well let's start by looking at the big yellow thing in the sky, hmm, finite if you're going to talk about the next 1bn years, but for all intents and purposes infinite.

Oil, the need for oil can, it is reasonable to be expected, be met by a. improved gm based bio fuel production (I seem to recall some algae were pretty close to zero processing (compared to traditional extraction and processing) for diesel & aero fuel, then there's nuclear, fuel cell technology and so on and so on.  Steel & other metals, recycling & no real shortage.

In facts there's no resource that we're not likely to have developed a substitute for by the time there's a pressing need.

The neo-malthusian apocalyptic bollocks is just that, bollocks.

It's only when we've chopped down the last forest, it's only when we've poisoned the last lake that we will realise we can't survive on teenage platitudes.

[Stubbs]

Excellent, so by infinite you meant things that come from the sun. And increased use and demand for biofuels is doing what at the moment? Oh yes driving people into food poverty as they can't afford grains that are being bought to turn into fuel to add to diesel in developed nations.

[slackline]

In facts there's no resource that we're not likely to have developed a substitute for by the time there's a pressing need.

I'd hedge my bets that some of the rare earth elements that are now in huge demand, which is only increasing, will run out without any viable replacement as whilst we might be able to get fusion running in the not too distant future to supply us with energy, controlling it in such a manner as to produce these rare elements will take a lot longer.

Some of them do occur widely, but not in concentrated mineral deposits that are easy to mine, but at some point perhaps the demand will make extracting them from something like sea-water viable and/or recycling (which is on the increase), but the former will be very expensive (just look at the cost of removing salt from water in the desalination plants that have started to spring up in Australia).

This ties back in to the "neo-malthusian apocyalyptic bollocks" of supply and demand of limited resources which influence a products price in face of demand as some of the rare earth elements are key to the current functioning of the touchscreens on smartphones/tablets (of course being resourceful inventors some human somewhere might come up with a cheap renewable alternative whilst current supplies are being depeleted).

[Fultonius]

This thread has been great. 15 pages of generally interesting, informative and generally well thought out and researched points, often with references etc.

Then Sloper came along. 

[petejh]

In facts there's no resource that we're not likely to have developed a substitute for by the time there's a pressing need.

I'd hedge my bets that some of the rare earth elements that are now in huge demand, which is only increasing, will run out without any viable replacement as whilst we might be able to get fusion running in the not too distant future to supply us with energy, controlling it in such a manner as to produce these rare elements will take a lot longer.

Some of them do occur widely, but not in concentrated mineral deposits that are easy to mine, but at some point perhaps the demand will make extracting them from something like sea-water viable and/or recycling (which is on the increase), but the former will be very expensive (just look at the cost of removing salt from water in the desalination plants that have started to spring up in Australia).

This ties back in to the "neo-malthusian apocyalyptic bollocks" of supply and demand of limited resources which influence a products price in face of demand as some of the rare earth elements are key to the current functioning of the touchscreens on smartphones/tablets (of course being resourceful inventors some human somewhere might come up with a cheap renewable alternative whilst current supplies are being depeleted).

That wikipedia page is a bit outdated. I've been invested in a few different rare earth miners in the US and Canada for the past 4 years and really there isn't a shortage - prices rocketed in 2009 following China's imposition of an export restriction but that was a political tit for tat with Japan over territorial claims of some islands in the south china sea. There's a glut of 'rare' earths, and new resources continue to come on line.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1646283-rare-earth-prices-to-fade-as-china-loses-dispute-mines-raise-output

[Jaspersharpe]

Can't we just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up to drill asteroids for this stuff anyway?

[slackline]

That wikipedia page is a bit outdated. I've been invested in a few different rare earth miners in the US and Canada for the past 4 years and really there isn't a shortage - prices rocketed in 2009 following China's imposition of an export restriction but that was a political tit for tat with Japan over territorial claims of some islands in the south china sea. There's a glut of 'rare' earths, and new resources continue to come on line.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1646283-rare-earth-prices-to-fade-as-china-loses-dispute-mines-raise-output

Cheers Pete, not really a topic I keep abreast of every day.

However, that prices rocketed when China were having a tiff with Japan only serves to prove the point that there are finite resources and their availability impacts their price.  At a certain point technology and resourcefullness will lead to other avenues being sought if what has been traditionally used becomes too expensive.

[Sloper]

Excellent, so by infinite you meant things that come from the sun. And increased use and demand for biofuels is doing what at the moment? Oh yes driving people into food poverty as they can't afford grains that are being bought to turn into fuel to add to diesel in developed nations.

From memory, some of the more modern biofuels are gm algae based and have a virtually zero impact on crop production / costs.

Expecting the early days of biofuel production to be replicated when the system and economic model matures is as cogent as looking at early days of oil production with current practices.

The is a very long list of examples whereby when a naturally occuring material becomes too expensive that a cheaper (and often more effective) substitue is developed.

Why are we still then searching for oil & gas?  you ask; well it's about ROI, the investment dictates while it's still profitable to eploit natural oil and gas we'll do it.  That doesn't mean that the R&D for fuel cells, bio fuels & etc aren't ongoing, it's just not economic yet to take them to market or obtain significant market penetration.

[Sloper]

Can't we just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up to drill asteroids for this stuff anyway?

That's not as fanciful as it might sound, I read an article on space law (yes really) in respect of territorial possession of extra terrestrial bodies and mineral extraction fairly recently (well when I say read, I cast my eye over it an moved on to soemthing a bit more pertinent) and there was a suggestion that this could be on stream in say 80 years (but don't buy shares just yet folks)

There's also deep sea harvesting of the 'rare earths', again the article was on international law so I didn't read in depth but from this and other bits & bobs, we're probably only 5-10 years away from deep sea bed harvesting; which will massively increase the ravailable reserves; almsot certainly long enough for new technology to render their use obsolete.

[Fultonius]

Can't we just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up to drill asteroids for this stuff anyway?

That's not as fanciful as it might sound, I read an article on space law (yes really) in respect of territorial possession of extra terrestrial bodies and mineral extraction fairly recently (well when I say read, I cast my eye over it an moved on to soemthing a bit more pertinent) and there was a suggestion that this could be on stream in say 80 years (but don't buy shares just yet folks)

Well that sounds just AMAZING for the environment. Fly into space to mine the materials for fancy smartphones and the like. Hmm..    I'm sure there's money in it, but I'm not sure it makes sense!

[Sloper]

Personally I think it's bonkers economics, but then again before the article I didn't even know there was such a field as space law with various international treaties & etc.

As for this constant bleating about the environment there are those who suggest that we've got man made ways of managing climate change, there's a whole chapter on it in 'hating whitey', which I will wager is not a text that many on here would have on their book shelf.

Basically, for all intents and purposes, we're not going to enter a prolonged period of scarcity of key resources whereby the scarcity has a significant and detrimental effect on the standard of living & etc.

However pointing this out really sticks in the throat of the chicken likin industry and their short sighted, evidence light ranters.

Bonjoy, perhaps rather than passing arse chestnuts, perhaps you can debate the subject in that innovation overcomes what would otherwise be the downside of a radical +ve change demand vs supply, and then perhaps go on to consider why this is unlikey to happen for the first time at a time when developments are proceeding with increasing pace & etc

If we're concerned about anything it should be outcomes rather than resources; for example, when I switch on the light, does it work?  If so I'm not concerned whether that's a result of an old inefficient coal fired power station or cold fusion.  If we 'run out' of coal it will not be because there's no coal underground it will be because there's no longer an economic demand for it.  We've 'run out' of whale oil for lighting, is that because there's no whales? Er no.

So can the watermelons please get a grip on reality and stop bothering us which their prohpecies of doom.

[Stubbs]

I do hope you're trolling with that entire post.

Basically, for all intents and purposes, we're not going to enter a prolonged period of scarcity of key resources whereby the scarcity has a significant and detrimental effect on the standard of living & etc.
 

I Assume you meant your standard of living, plenty of people worldwide already suffering due to oil prices and food prices.

We've 'run out' of whale oil for lighting, is that because there's no whales? Er no.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Read any book about whaling. Read a webpage about whaling. We very nearly 'ran out' of whales completely before some clever chap invented gasification of coal.

[Bonjoy]

I loose the will to live reading your fatuous faux intellectual drivel on this subject Sloper (ditto your opinions on Ukraine). Where do you start picking apart your sieve of an argument? It's easier and less depressing not to bother. I don't believe anything I say will change what you think one iota. I certainly don't have the time to waste. I shouldn't read your posts in the first place, it's like picking scabs.

[Sloper]

Well, as far as an ad hom attack goes that would barely break the skin of a custard.  Have a wad point.

Come back with a proper response and you can have two.

[Sloper]

I do hope you're trolling with that entire post.

Basically, for all intents and purposes, we're not going to enter a prolonged period of scarcity of key resources whereby the scarcity has a significant and detrimental effect on the standard of living & etc.
 

I Assume you meant your standard of living, plenty of people worldwide already suffering due to oil prices and food prices.

We've 'run out' of whale oil for lighting, is that because there's no whales? Er no.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Read any book about whaling. Read a webpage about whaling. We very nearly 'ran out' of whales completely before some clever chap invented gasification of coal.

More people suffer from inept and corrupt (and often correlated with left wing) governments. Plenty of people suffer from a lack of food / cash / health care for all sorts of reasons, the decline in the availability of peat, coal, whale oil* etc rarely features as a causal factor (*substitute any resource which has 'declined' or no longer relied upon).

As far as web pages go re whaling, I think you're missing the point in respect of the response to the surge in price as a consequence of supply vs demand; why do you think that people might have been driven to innovate?  Could it, yes, could it possibly be, that there was an economic imperative to develop the alternative?

This is as natural as no longer relying on flint tools.

What happened when we stopped relying on whale oil; did the lights go out all over Europe, were people campaigning for the preservation of a selective whale hunt, with subsidies to preserve the whaling industry?

Of course this doesn't fit with the quasi theological approach from the watermelon fraternity (look just as sensible as Spartists shouting 'neo-liberal thatcherite & etc) but then again evidence doesn't really work well to counter the theistic approach, it's as if one seeks to argue for evolution with a young earth creationist.