I was following a discussion on econbrowser about peak oil and why economists and "peak oilers" can't talk to each other. Someone summed it up as the following:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')What they've (economists) got a good grasp of is the fundamental factor behind economic growth: accumulation of physical and intellectual capital.
"Peak oilers" have a different explanation for economic growth, access to cheap energy, more specifically conventional crude oil. " -Heiko Gerhauser
PeakOil is You
Chicken or egg question
First unread post • 4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Chicken or egg question
by cat » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 21:02:45
Which caused me to ask then what factor does access to cheap energy play in accumulation of physical and intellectual capital and ponder a kind of chicken and egg question: Have we been able to create all our wonderful technology due to access to easy cheap energy, or has our ability to use our intellect to create our complex technology allowed us to utilize different substances for energy?
Since pondering peak oil, I've always assumed the former, and really still do. But, maybe I'm not correct.
Anyway, I thought it might me an interesting discussion topic on the group.
(If you read that thread I am lamb (my intitials).
-
cat - Peat
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Western Washington
Re: Chicken or egg question
by Z » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 21:26:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cat', 'H')ave we been able to create all our wonderful technology due to access to easy cheap energy, or has our ability to use our intellect to create our complex technology allowed us to utilize different substances for energy?
The energy/intelligence feedback is built in man ( our ability to use tools is something that makes us apart from other species ). Intelligence is a very useful adaptation mechanism for a life-form to gather energy. Today's technology is the result of an age-long cultural evolution that resulted in an exponential curve of available energy as knowledge and technology followed the same kind of curve.
-
Z - Lignite
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Wed 11 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: France
Growth
by DoctorDoom » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 21:30:14
IMO neither view is entirely correct.
The world may be better off for a great work art, or a scientific discovery, with little or no consequences with respect to resource usage. What's the knowledge about human blood types worth? Penicilin? DNA? A play by Shakespeare? Tschikovsky's works? The movie triolgy Lord of the Rings? Microsoft Office? The game Halo2? The game of poker? The game of basketball? A painting by Monet? Humankind has always needed and valued forms of entertainment and art, as well as knowledge about the world we live in. These things have economic value, though it may be hard to measure and there may be disagreement about the actual utility of any of it.
On the other hand, humankind also needs material goods, food, shelter, medicine, etc. These things also have economic value, but are constrained by resourses. We're in trouble here because we may be beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth.
The availability of cheap energy has greatly accellerated the accumulation of valuable knowledge because (a) there are lot more of us, and (b) a much lesser percentage of our number have been needed to produce the basic necessities of life. This enables everything from advances in hard-drive technology to the Jerry Springer show.
Growth can continue even after resource limits are reached - it just won't be growth in material things. It may or may not be preceeded by a great contraction of some sort if we are indeed beyond the material carrying capacity.
The world may be better off for a great work art, or a scientific discovery, with little or no consequences with respect to resource usage. What's the knowledge about human blood types worth? Penicilin? DNA? A play by Shakespeare? Tschikovsky's works? The movie triolgy Lord of the Rings? Microsoft Office? The game Halo2? The game of poker? The game of basketball? A painting by Monet? Humankind has always needed and valued forms of entertainment and art, as well as knowledge about the world we live in. These things have economic value, though it may be hard to measure and there may be disagreement about the actual utility of any of it.
On the other hand, humankind also needs material goods, food, shelter, medicine, etc. These things also have economic value, but are constrained by resourses. We're in trouble here because we may be beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth.
The availability of cheap energy has greatly accellerated the accumulation of valuable knowledge because (a) there are lot more of us, and (b) a much lesser percentage of our number have been needed to produce the basic necessities of life. This enables everything from advances in hard-drive technology to the Jerry Springer show.
Growth can continue even after resource limits are reached - it just won't be growth in material things. It may or may not be preceeded by a great contraction of some sort if we are indeed beyond the material carrying capacity.
- DoctorDoom
- Expert
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California
by RonMN » Fri 15 Jul 2005, 23:18:43
IMHO I see 2 things that could save us...
1- The miracle of fusion based energy.
2- We all cooperate and share resources that are scarce (world-wide).
Neither one do i view as "realisitic".
1- The miracle of fusion based energy.
2- We all cooperate and share resources that are scarce (world-wide).
Neither one do i view as "realisitic".
-
RonMN - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2628
- Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Minnesota
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest