[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Oh! You're speaking of the depletion of specific resources, not the sum of all resources. That, of course, is true. Specific, individual resources can certainly deplete (the Dodo as a food source, for example). I only meant that there's always something. If you're on the verge of starvation and there's no convenient food, obviously you're lacking a vital resource. But if instead you're only looking for anything of value, there's always a junk pile to search for hidden value, and there's always some hidden value waiting therein if you can determine how to exploit it.

Call it the Antiques Roadshow principle.

Though it's a technicality, I only said the sum of Earth's resources was practically infinite, not literally. That is neither demonstrably incorrect nor incorrect at all.

I don't even think it's practically infinite. Actually, I'd argue, if anything it's a lot less plentiful than we're commonly led to believe. For instance Net Primary Production is the measure of the amount of organic compounds produced on Earth, the vast majority of which is through photosynthesis.Photsynthesis is the process by which plants turn inorganic precursors (e.g. oxygen and CO2) into organic compounds using sunlight. Apart from a miniscule portion of specialty microbes and fungi, it's the basis of all life on the planet.

It's a pretty back-of-the-envelope calcaultion, but it is estimated that humans currently consume about 30 or 40% of the net primary production (mostly terretsial NPP, and only one or two percent of the marine NPP).

Here is a site that does some of the math and explains the results:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/energyflow/energyflow.html

I'm not making any philosophical inference about this, but just pointing out that, in my opinion and based on this evidence, it would be a mistake to consider any of the earth's biological resources infinite (or practically inexhaustible).

Cheers

Zip

[Quantum_Wizard]

DerbyX wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Great, it is the definition of Pareto efficiency, but the assumption that if one person is better off that someone else must necessarily be worse off is patently false.

It was Pareto's assumptions that led to the dissolution of the Italian Republic and the change to Fascism.

Forgive me if I will allow that some of his ideas led the way for others, but that ideas like this one were based in false assumptions.

It's not an assumption, it's an ideal for a perfect system. It doesn't--and can't--exist in reality. Wonder whatever happened to Toro. He could explain better than I.

I happen to agree with you on the merits of it--or lack thereof--but all the same it is one of the very first principles all free-market economics students learn.

Lets prove your theory then. You send me your money and I'll spend it thus verifying your hypothesis. I'll be better off financially and you'll be worse but you'll get the immense satisfaction of being proven correct.

Its win-win baby!

What are you talking about? What would that prove? I know you're just joking, but I'd still like to know. I don't understand your reasoning at all.

It would not be a Pareto improvement if Zipperfish sent you money since he'd be worse off.

Or were you talking about something else?

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

the sum of Earth's resources was practically infinite

I don't even think it's practically infinite.

NASA puts the mass of the Earth at 5.9736 × 10^24 kg. Humanity weighs something less than half a trillion (5 x 10^11) kg (that's 70 kg times 7 billion people, rounded up). The total mass of all artificial objects could be a million times that and the mass accessible to humans be a millionth of total and yet use is still dwarfed by existence. The stuff is there, it's only it's usability that is in question.

Your argument considers only biological matter. Why? This was an economics and production debate, not an environmental one. Silica sand, marble, and iron ore are still economic resources even though they are not environmental ones.

[DerbyX]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

What are you talking about? What would that prove? I know you're just joking, but I'd still like to know. I don't understand your reasoning at all.

It would not be a Pareto improvement if Zipperfish sent you money since he'd be worse off.

Or were you talking about something else?

I think I'm joking about Zips reference where if somebody gains somebody must lose.

Was that not the very essence of his post?

[Lemmy]

Psudo wrote:

Your argument considers only biological matter. Why? This was an economics and production debate, not an environmental one. Silica sand, marble, and iron ore are still economic resources even though they are not environmental ones.

And yet, the concept of Pareto Efficiency is more often employed in Environmental Economics than any other branch of the discipline. Separating economics and environment is mostly pre-70s thinking in the economics community. Their study is rarely exclusive of one another.

[Psudo]

I was intentionally avoiding discussion of Pareto Efficiency because I'd never heard of it before. I was referring more generally to the theory that there are finite resources available to mankind.

Having now looked it up, it sounds like something with a Pareto Efficiency is something that operates like a zero-sum game, whereas something with a low Pareto Efficiency is a game with a rather flexible sum.

In those terms, I'm arguing that the total sum of all resources available to humanity will continue to lack much Pareto efficiency for quite some time. Specific resources or classes of resources may have some, even a lot, but the sum total of all has very little.

[Quantum_Wizard]

DerbyX wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

What are you talking about? What would that prove? I know you're just joking, but I'd still like to know. I don't understand your reasoning at all.

It would not be a Pareto improvement if Zipperfish sent you money since he'd be worse off.

Or were you talking about something else?

I think I'm joking about Zips reference where if somebody gains somebody must lose.

Was that not the very essence of his post?

Not at all (unless I misunderstood). Often there can be improvements where somebody gains but no one loses. These are called Pareto improvements. When one can no longer make Pareto improvements, the situation is called Pareto optimal (or Pareto efficient).

You can read the post I made to BartSimpson (at the end of page 3). Maybe it explains the concept.

[BartSimpson]

Chumley wrote:

The world itself is a closed system and will eventually have no new frontiers of wealth to create I would think.

Intellectual property is an unlimited frontier for the creation of new wealth.

Chumley wrote:

Capitalism succeeds against other systems because of the freedom of the people under it against other systems that stifle individual freedom, but if all nations embraced the same freedoms what becomes of the advantage?

It's an economic system, not a political movement. If everyone is capitalist the advantage is that they all have access to the global market. There's no actual downside here except for people who can't compete against people in another part of the world.

Chumley wrote:

The ultimate result of the fight to bring all people of the world under one common ideal is socialism(if it actually succeeds). How can capitalism survive with no one to compete with. Would not the world become one united socialist state?

Socialism is not inevitable. Stop listening to your teachers, there's some solid reasons why they're teachers and not captains of industry. That said, capitalism does not compete against other ideologies. Capitalists compete against one another. If the whole world is capitalist then we will all compete against each other.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

NASA puts the mass of the Earth at 5.9736 × 10^24 kg. Humanity weighs something less than half a trillion (5 x 10^11) kg (that's 70 kg times 7 billion people, rounded up). The total mass of all artificial objects could be a million times that and the mass accessible to humans be a millionth of total and yet use is still dwarfed by existence. The stuff is there, it's only it's usability that is in question.

Your argument considers only biological matter. Why? This was an economics and production debate, not an environmental one. Silica sand, marble, and iron ore are still economic resources even though they are not environmental ones.

Considering only biological matter makes practical sense since, since we need organic matter to survive. Humans can't eat sand. Or money for that matter. So when considering the earth's resources it makes sense to consider those resources that are necessary for human survival, since the rest become worthless, in an economic sense, if there are no humans left.

EDIT: But yes, now I see you were involved a theoretical discussion about wealth that does not presuppose the existence of humans, so sorry for that. I will derail no further. Carry on!

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Considering only biological matter makes practical sense since, since we need organic matter to survive. Humans can't eat sand. Or money for that matter. So when considering the earth's resources it makes sense to consider those resources that are necessary for human survival, since the rest become worthless, in an economic sense, if there are no humans left.

The ecosphere converts non-organic matter into biomass all the time. Therefore, considering only organic material is improperly biasing your assessment because you're not including potential organic materials such as iron, silica, calcium, salt, manganese, zinc, petroleum, coal, sulphur, and etc.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I see this thread is reviewing the status of the mixed capitalist economy which the world lives by. I like to say there is a Canadian Way. We are more business like than Europe and more socialist than the USA. We are business like, parsimonious but caring. In Eurpoe the government costs are so high economic growth is stagnated while in the USA there is lots of economic jobs growth but they short change all government responsiblilities. Here in Canada we balance better. That's the Canadian Way. Going forward we could get unemployment down, the defict and debt undercontrol and see some social progress. We'd be an example to the world.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Considering only biological matter makes practical sense since, since we need organic matter to survive. Humans can't eat sand. Or money for that matter. So when considering the earth's resources it makes sense to consider those resources that are necessary for human survival, since the rest become worthless, in an economic sense, if there are no humans left.

The ecosphere converts non-organic matter into biomass all the time. Therefore, considering only organic material is improperly biasing your assessment because you're not including potential organic materials such as iron, silica, calcium, salt, manganese, zinc, petroleum, coal, sulphur, and etc.

Go back and read my post about net primary production, NPP, a few posts ago. Better yet, read up on it on google.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

NASA puts the mass of the Earth at 5.9736 × 10^24 kg. Humanity weighs something less than half a trillion (5 x 10^11) kg (that's 70 kg times 7 billion people, rounded up). The total mass of all artificial objects could be a million times that and the mass accessible to humans be a millionth of total and yet use is still dwarfed by existence. The stuff is there, it's only it's usability that is in question.

Your argument considers only biological matter. Why? This was an economics and production debate, not an environmental one. Silica sand, marble, and iron ore are still economic resources even though they are not environmental ones.

Considering only biological matter makes practical sense since, since we need organic matter to survive. Humans can't eat sand. Or money for that matter. So when considering the earth's resources it makes sense to consider those resources that are necessary for human survival, since the rest become worthless, in an economic sense, if there are no humans left.

EDIT: But yes, now I see you were involved a theoretical discussion about wealth that does not presuppose the existence of humans, so sorry for that. I will derail no further. Carry on!

Banknotes are made of cotton which is made of cellulose that can be transformed by enzymes into glucose by cellulosys ...

[Psudo]

Agriculture is humanity intentionally creating biomatter in forms that best suit human needs. That being the case, the solution to low global biomass production is to amp up agriculture. Isn't that true? This process would occur naturally due to the increasing demand of an increasing population, the increasing capability of continually improving science, and the increasing value of unlimited and increasingly utilized inorganic resources.

Is there some reason to believe increasing human investment in agriculture will fail to induce a sufficient increase in primary production?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

Agriculture is humanity intentionally creating biomatter in forms that best suit human needs. That being the case, the solution to low global biomass production is to amp up agriculture. Isn't that true? This process would occur naturally due to the increasing demand of an increasing population, the increasing capability of continually improving science, and the increasing value of unlimited and increasingly utilized inorganic resources.

Is there some reason to believe increasing human investment in agriculture will fail to induce a sufficient increase in primary production?

Well, it's an interesting and complex question, and one that I've read on substantially, since I have an enduring fascination in the relationship between ecosystems and planetary thermodynamics. My short answer would be: Nothing's impossible. However, I have already derailed the topic through my blundering, so I'll leave it at that--except to recommend some reading on NPP.