The dilemna of human exsistence

[The Dharma Bum]

Look, you are trying to distract from the point, which is this:

The earth's resources are finite, even if we use advanced technology that didn't exist previously to find more that we couldn't reach before at some point they will be exhausted. There's no getting around that.

And furthermore in our current situation all practical purposes resources are not infinite, we are using them up rapidly. Additionally, we are adding to the numbers that are using them even more rapidly. It's a compounded geometric progression and we can measure it happening in real time.

However if we take the necessary steps we can prolong the availability of needed resources. This is the point of the article, and the point I was making. I did not intend for you to take it as I agreed with every point the article made or was presenting the article as some type of gospel to be taken at face value and not thought about in any way.

It was a source I thought he would look at and it stated a more nuanced outlook toward the availability of resources than that which he took which was the brute assertion that resources are infinite and that business shouldn't be regulated in it's exploitation of them.

You seem to have missed the nuance of my position toward the source material.

[J.K. Gregg]

Let me extend an olive branch: I'm not opposed to taking certain action to ensure our children have a better life. What I'm totally against is this ideology that elevates nature above man, gives nature some value outside of any context, and morally condemns mankind for doing what it must naturally do to live.

[exploited]

I think you both agree more than you realize.

The difference is that The Dharma Bum thinks that "we are using them up rapidly," and that we don't have the time to develop the technology needed to sustain the coming population change... and so consumption has to be cut until we figure something out, otherwise we face ecological collapse.

I may be wrong, but it seems like J.K. Gregg thinks that we will probably figure it out, and if it really becomes a problem, we will definitely figure it out.

I'm sure both of you can agree to the idea that people need to prioritize conserving resources, finding more efficient ways to use them, and drastically cutting our consumption. You may disagree on how we do that, but certainly those are the goals, right? We need to do this to give ourselves the time to really solve the energy problem, because there is going to be 9 billion of us by 2050, and that is a serious, serious logistical challenge.

[J.K. Gregg]

Good thing prices of energy include both present-day and future availability.

[exploited]

[J.K. Gregg]

The market makes these investments when they become needed. Oil is cheap and abundant enough for now. When it starts to dry up (which I personally don't think it will anytime soon), fuel cells or some other new technology will take its place.

Natural gas is super abundant, and will be for years to come, but one day, some plucky college kid is going to come up with a cheap method of nuclear fusion and make the industry much more viable. A team in Israel is going to create a new energy cell to make solar power way more efficient. And we'll progress on from there, but each of these improvements are powered by self-interest and the market. Investing in alternative energy production now before the market even wants it, is a waste of resources and a violation of rights.

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

[J.K. Gregg]

[exploited]