I didn't realize that I was making an assumption. Is it not established fact? Or is there something hiding behind the word unbounded that turns the data below into "gotcha on a technicality?"

View attachment 299152

There seems to be a problem with my browser. The chart stops at 2021. I missing the part where it predicts the future.

...finite resource (oil, real estate) and perpetual increasing rate of consumption of it, it will eventually be exhausted.

All useful resources are finite and scarce. This is why they have value, and why smart people look for them (and replacements for them!).

It's also the very reason why economies exists, and certain human civilizations prosper.

It is my current understanding that there are 100s of years worth of proven oil, gas, and coal reserves available to us right now. There is evidence to suggest that those reserves will continue to expand (outstripping consumption) as technology advances.

Yet: there are those who think we should Just Stop Oil today! regardless of the human consequences (actual human death as a direct result of energy policy == human culling), because ... why?

Perhaps someday -- not in our lifetimes -- cheap, easy, reliable energy (necessary for prosperity and life!) in the form of gas and oil may not be available. At that point, other forms of energy will become economically viable -- and smart people will find a way to make it happen, all the while adding further to our technological prowess and increasing prosperity.

So is your argument that soon (or maybe just eventually) all societies will be sufficiently prosperous and advanced that population will stabilize?

Absolutely not. Prosperity requires freedom. Freedom is rare historically and geographically. Populations will continue to locally decimate themselves -- through war and famine -- as a matter of course.

Those that practice freedom and achieve prosperity will self-limit.

There is math, and there is truth. I'm just pointing at it. Isn't that what this thread was supposed to be about? Perpetually increasing consumption of a finite resource results inevitably in exhausting that resource. That is the mathematical truth and it is quite obvious.

I think this is one of those "orders of magnitude" problems that was raised in the original video. It is difficult for us humans to image a number of things: how large the earth really is, how much of natural resources are really available, how innovative some really smart individuals can be, etc.

There were more unavoidable famines when there were millions of people living on earth than when there were billions. Ask yourself why. Life was nasty, brutish, and short -- even for the most fortunate, rich, or powerful. Today, almost everyone in the developed world lives at least the life of a king in the Dark Ages.

It can't be evil. You almost called me evil, but not quite.

I am not religious. The word "evil" to me means anti-life and anti-freedom.

Example: replacing reliable nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas power plants with unreliable, insufficient solar and wind power -- by edict -- is evil: people will die (and have died) because of this -- in addition to the fact that doing so impoverishes ourselves while empowering our enemies.

 

Example: replacing reliable nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas power plants with unreliable, insufficient solar and wind power -- by edict -- is evil: people will die (and have died) because of this

Can you give an example of that, where those energy sources were eliminated by edict and people died as a result? I must have missed it.

 

Can you give an example of that, where those energy sources were eliminated by edict and people died as a result? I must have missed it.

There are a number of examples here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...nd-increase-vulnerability-to-extreme-weather/

Each of the mentioned grid failures resulted in deaths (not enumerated in the article).

 

OMG!
I learned a new word today: soylent.
Also, never heard of Soylent Green before. I don't watch too many movies or much TV.

Soylent green is people, @MrChips!

Amazingly enough, there is a actual male replacement product called “Soylent”.

 

Soylent green is people, @MrChips!

Amazingly enough, there is a actual male replacement product called “Soylent”.

Would be nice to have a male replacement but I'd rather have a square meal.

 

There are a number of examples here:

Can you show me where it says nuclear and fossil fuels were banned by edict? I can’t find it.

 

there are those who think we should Just Stop Oil today! regardless of the human consequences (actual human death as a direct result of energy policy == human culling), because ... why?
[...]
Absolutely not. Prosperity requires freedom.
[...]
The word "evil" to me means anti-life and anti-freedom.

Example: replacing reliable nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas power plants with unreliable, insufficient solar and wind power -- by edict -- is evil: people will die (and have died) because of this -- in addition to the fact that doing so impoverishes ourselves while empowering our enemies.

I think I understand the nature of our disagreement now, and it wasn't necessarily anything I said, but the fact that what I said sounded like something others before me have said, that they followed up with attacks on your freedom and bad ideas about alternative energy. Those are not my ideas, not my words. I think everything will work itself out; no need to cram solar down anyone's throat or trample liberty. I just think the way in which it will work itself out won't be very pleasant.

 

I just think the way in which it will work itself out won't be very pleasant.

This is our disagreement, then.

I think things will work out as they always have: where there's freedom, things will be pleasant. Where tyranny, not so much.

 

Can you show me where it says nuclear and fossil fuels were banned by edict? I can’t find it.

First, show me where I said, "banned".

 

First, show me where I said, "banned".

replacing reliable nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas power plants with unreliable, insufficient solar and wind power -- by edict

Okay, I hereby change my request from “banned by edict” to “replaced by edict.”

 

This is our disagreement, then.

I think things will work out as they always have: where there's freedom, things will be pleasant. Where tyranny, not so much.

Being free to starve isn't pleasant but I would rather that, than tyranny. So I agree to not disagree. You of course are free to do whatever.

 

Would be nice to have a male replacement but I'd rather have a square meal.

A square male, maybe. A nerdy assistant could be useful.

 

Not accusing you of anything but every argument ad infinitum about complex systems with homeostatic tendencies, suffers from the same problem, it fails to account for the response of different parts of the system to the changes that are occurring over time.

”All things being equal” is like saying “in a perfect world”—it’s not going to happen, and it doesn’t even describe a possible thing. So, “running our of oil” isn’t going to happen, not because there is an infinite supply but because as it becomes more scarce the cost to extract it will exceed the value of having it.

Population is a little—or maybe a lot—more complex than that, though. In the case of population you have a situation where, as things stand, individuals can continue to add to the population regardless of the cost. Where oil requires industrial scale enterprise to produce, children takes just two people and sometimes not even that many.

So, certainly some of the same economic pressures and mechanisms that will ensure we will find a substitute for oil before we pump the earth dry are at play with population, but it has this extra dimension that makes it much more vexed. It is telling that education and prosperity lead to reduced family size.

Maybe the solution to overpopulation is making everyone middle class.

Agreed on all counts but that last sentence treads on dangerous ground. How many destitute families could be made middle class with a sliver of Jeff Bezos' wealth? And how many would aspire to do what he did if that were the reward? Seems like another "race to the bottom" scenario.

 

Agreed on all counts but that last sentence treads on dangerous ground. How many destitute families could be made middle class with a sliver of Jeff Bezos' wealth? And how many would aspire to do what he did if that were the reward? Seems like another "race to the bottom" scenario.

I think this is very dangerous territory but I would strongly encourage you (if you haven’t already) to investigate UBI and the studies of it, aside from that far be it from me to disturb this hornet’s nest.

 

How many destitute families could be made middle class with a sliver of Jeff Bezos' wealth?

How to take this?

Are said families poor on account of Jeff Bezos?

If we steal Jeff Bezos' wealth, will these families become -- and stay -- middle class?

If we eliminate all wealth -- beyond a proscribed value (by whom???) -- will that make everyone wealthy?

What happens to the existing middle class that were employed servicing Jeff Bezos' wealth?

What is it, specifically, about Jeff Bezos' wealth that keeps the poor from the middle class (or better)?

For the record, I am not a fan of Jeff Bezos.

But I am of his money.

Same as you. Just in a different way.

 

How to take this?

Are said families poor on account of Jeff Bezos?

If we steal Jeff Bezos' wealth, will these families become -- and stay -- middle class?

If we eliminate all wealth -- beyond a proscribed value (by whom???) -- will that make everyone wealthy?

What happens to the existing middle class that were employed servicing Jeff Bezos' wealth?

What is it, specifically, about Jeff Bezos' wealth that keeps the poor from the middle class (or better)?

For the record, I am not a fan of Jeff Bezos.

But I am of his money.

Same as you. Just in a different way.

Not in a different way. Your questions are the point I was trying to make.

 

I think this is very dangerous territory but I would strongly encourage you (if you haven’t already) to investigate UBI and the studies of it, aside from that far be it from me to disturb this hornet’s nest.

I have looked into it and it seems a perfect solution for starting a society. But for one already established? Yeah, hornet's nest indeed.

As more and more jobs become automated I think UBI or something like it will become a necessity. We are working ourselves out of more jobs every day (i contribute directly to this, and don't intend to stop). We have talked about oil, real estate. But jobs are another commodity that is... not exactly finite, but hard to put a finger on their nature. But I think they are going to diminish. There will be (or already is) more people than jobs for them to do. Then what? Hard to tell folks they ought to pick themselves up by their bootstraps in that situation.

 

Not in a different way. Your questions are the point I was trying to make.

I get it:

Maybe the solution to overpopulation is making everyone middle class.

I took this statement in a different positive way: Make everyone middle class by promoting conditions that result in such.

The alternative obviously is to "spread the wealth around" ("by edict" is implied).

Yes, the latter concept would not achieve the prosperity required for a self-limiting population.

 

I'm very glad to have been an early instigator in this Thread.
Please, don't any of You stop.

How do You make something as common as rocks fabulously valuable ?
Spend lots of Money on advertising, repeatedly telling everyone how scarce and desirable it is.
After a while, everyone will start agreeing with the idea.
This is exactly how Diamond-Jewelry got so expensive.
( I think it was a guy named Debeers who did exactly this )

Very soon, we will all see the final demise of fake "Fiat"-"Currencies",
which will be replaced by Commodities-Backed Real-Moneys,
which will be available in all the usual forms, ie Coins, Paper-Bills, and Digital formats.
This is going to be a massive game changer.
It's going to be a miserable time for all of the Gamblers (Evil Banksters) in the World.

When the Banksters go away, everyone else's income will roughly double, but relative to what ?
Money never made anyone permanently happy and content.
If people run out of problems to have, they will invent new ones, every time.

Life is not intended to be "fair",
there's nothing easy about it.
If it was easy, there would be no incentive to strive towards improvement.
.
.
.

 

We are working ourselves out of more jobs every day...

I beginning to hate disagreeing with you, as it turns out we were in agreement from the beginning on most issues.

But, alas:

In the US, there are more jobs than people, even with automation, ChatGPT, and everything else. I think as long as people are free to work and prosper -- as they see fit -- they will always find valuable work to do that pays well.

Much of Europe effectively pays their citizens not to work, or by edict limit the number of hours they can work. There they have more people than jobs, lower productivity, and smaller growth.

Value is created by the producer, not the consumer. Incentivize the producers not to produce, say by giving unearned cash, and that is the end of prosperity for everyone.