Re: finite world/resource depletion

["James R. Olson, jr." <jhavok@xxxxxxxx>]

At 09:55 AM 9/14/97 -0400, Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant) wrote:
>
>Adelman points out however that a whole spectrum of finite
>goods have been declining in price for fifty years, and many
>of them have been declining in spite of efforts to use
>stockpiles and other policies to keep them up.  It may be the
>case, he suggests, that finite resource arguments do not
>seem to describe accurately how in fact resources are
>developed and priced.  He concentrates his argument on
>the increasing technological efficiency with which
>formerly non-profitable resources can be developed.  I
>always add to that (his is an oil-specific view) that
>inter-commodity substitution seems to increase exponentially
>as technologiy developes.

(...)
>
>The more relevant issue in my mind is carrying capacity
>in terms of wastes.  Here too, however, some caution is
>needed.  If the automotive technology of the 1950s
>were still in use today, California would have long
>ago exhausted its human carrying capacity.  The catalytic
>converter extended that carrying capacity (sticking
>with the air dimension) by many decades and several
>tens of millions of people.  When it was thought that
>this technical potential had been exhausted, it was
>found that gasoline could be reformulated to get
>yet another decade or two and additional carrying
>capacity (thought compelling arguments remain for
>moving away from petroleum fuels).  But as we sit
>here today the fact remains that California with
>nearly 30 million people is from an air quality
>point of view much better than it was in my
>childhood (1960s) with 12-15 million people.  I do
>think, however, that other kinds of carrying limits
>may be reached.  The strain on parks in california
>from sheer use is enormous.

I consider the finite Earth point to be a simple reality check on fantasies
of perpetual growth.  If the limit isn't hit in our generation, does that
mean we shouldn't be conscious and conscientious of it?

I agree that waste managememt will probably be the first place where the
true limits of the Earth are encountered.  Living on an island, I see a
microcosm of the larger problem.  It took 35 years to turn our landfill
from a valley into a hill.  Now we burn what can be burned, but there's
still a lot of solid waste (with a high proportion of taoxics) left over,
and the new landfill isn't expected to last thirtyfive years,  not to
mention the problem of dioxin compounds in the smoke.

Citing examples of one area or another where expected limits were exceeded
doesn't mean that every limit will be exceeded forever, since it really
only takes one to bring the whole house of cards down.

Every activity produces waste, and even if we manage to reduce that waste
below the currently absurd levels, at some point we'll run into the the
simple finitude of the planet.