Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Kudaros
Jun 23, 2006
Al Bartlett is worth examining.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kudaros
Jun 23, 2006

Morbus posted:

The Al Bartlett talk is a good one, but perhaps the best part about it is that it was made in the early 1990's, and therefore many of the trends he talks about can be examined 20 years later.

The price of a ski ticket at Vail's has indeed continued to grow at roughly 7% a year. But the population of Boulder has been relatively flat (as has the population of Los Angeles, which also no longer suffers from abysmal air quality), and US oil production, which had been declining sharply from 1971 to 1992, is now higher than it was when this talk was made.

As far as material resources go, its worth distinguishing between consumable and non-consumable resources. Things like fossil fuels are gone once you burn them, and the only way to get more is get it out of the ground, and if it isn't there tough poo poo. Things like rare-earth metals don't disappear once they are put in a product. Lots of metals are routinely recycled. In other cases (like lithium ion batteries at present), it doesn't always make economic sense. But the stuff doesn't go away, it's just a question of 1.) how easy is it to recover material from discarded or obsolete products and 2.) how much total material needs to be in circulation based on present demand, and how does that compare with the amount currently available or the rate of extraction?

Those examples are used more as thought experiments to illustrate the broader issues of growth. The lesson isn't specifically regarding Boulder, but rather that at some point something has got to give and the material significance of growth is often buried in rhetoric about stimulating economies and such.

Sure, lots of deviations from a broad trend of growth will occur when looking at a specific place and time, but the broader point (that I've taken from this and other discussions) is that growth is unstable and surprisingly fast.

It's a very back-of-the-envelope physics-y argument which I am partial to due to it's simplicity, rather than pointing to ultra-specific periods of time and space that one should watch out for.

  • Locked thread