Read on Twitter
What's an example of a significant resource that the world has actually run out of?
Not a local, temperature shortage, or a resource that we gracefully transitioned away from, but like a significant problem causes by hitting some limit we didn't prepare for?
Not a local, temperature shortage, or a resource that we gracefully transitioned away from, but like a significant problem causes by hitting some limit we didn't prepare for?
Lots of things predicted to have shortages (food, metals, Peak Oil) and they never quite arrived. Julian Simon was famous for pointing out this kind of thing. Curious for any counterexamples.
More context: A common argument from conservationists / environmentalists is that we are running out of some critical resource X and need to conserve it. Food, land, water, oil, metals, etc.
Now, it's true that specific resources can and sometimes do get used up. Demand can outpace supply. There are various ways to respond to this:
• Reduce consumption
• Increase production
• Increase efficiency
• Switch to an alternative
(This may not be comprehensive)
• Reduce consumption
• Increase production
• Increase efficiency
• Switch to an alternative
(This may not be comprehensive)
Increasing production can be done by exploring and discovering new sources of a material, or—this is often overlooked—by reducing costs of production, so that marginally productive sources become economical.
New technology can often reduce costs of production this way and thus open up resources that were thought to be closed or impractical. Example: fracking for shale oil. Another: mechanization of agriculture in the 19th/20th c. reduced labor costs, which opened up new farmland.
Increased efficiency can be just as good as increased production. However, if the new, more efficient thing is not as desirable as the old method, I would classify this as a combination of increased efficiency and reduced consumption. E.g., low-flow toilets and weak shower heads.
When supplies are severely limited, we often end up switching to an alternative. There are many ways to satisfy human desires. Coal replaced wood in 18C England. Kerosene replaced whale oil, light bulbs replaced kerosene. Plastic replaced ivory and tortoiseshell.
Again, if the alternative is less desirable in some key dimension, then this is also a form of reduced consumption (even if total volumes stay the same).
However, the conservationist approach is *always* some form of reduced consumption: typically a combination of reduced absolute consumption, efficiency improvements that reduce quality/convenience, and/or less-desirable alternatives.
The arguments that people have over resources are actually a lot less about *whether* resources are getting used up, and much more about whether we should, or must, reduce consumption (in some form).
The alternative to the conservationists is to find a way to continue increasing consumption: typically new sources or high-quality alternatives.
Again, it's not about the resource, it's about whether we continue to grow consumption, or slow/stop/reverse that growth.
Again, it's not about the resource, it's about whether we continue to grow consumption, or slow/stop/reverse that growth.
The conservationist argument is a combination of practical and moral arguments.
The practical argument is: We can't keep doing this. Either this particular problem we're facing now is insoluble, or the next one will be.
The practical argument is: We can't keep doing this. Either this particular problem we're facing now is insoluble, or the next one will be.
The moral argument takes two forms.
One is an extension of the practical argument: it's reckless to keep growing consumption when we're going to crash into hard limits.
One is an extension of the practical argument: it's reckless to keep growing consumption when we're going to crash into hard limits.
A deeper moral argument appeals to a different set of values, such as the value of “connection” to the land, or of tradition, or stability.
Related is the argument that consumption *itself* is bad (beyond a certain point): it makes us weak, or degrades our character.
Related is the argument that consumption *itself* is bad (beyond a certain point): it makes us weak, or degrades our character.
(Related, there is an argument that we *could* keep growing consumption, but that this would have externalities, and the price is too high to pay, even disastrous. This too becomes both a practical and a moral argument, along exactly the same lines.)
But if we don't accept those alternate values—sticking with the basic standard of improving quality of life and fulfilling human needs and desires—then everything reduces to the practical argument:
*Can* we keep growing consumption? (Without destroying ourselves in the process?)
*Can* we keep growing consumption? (Without destroying ourselves in the process?)
The question of severe externalities is interesting and difficult, but let's set it aside for the moment. I'm interested in a commonly heard argument: that resource X is being rapidly depleted and we're going to hit a wall.
As far as I can tell, this never happens anymore. (?)
As far as I can tell, this never happens anymore. (?)
So I guess what I'm really asking is: has there ever been a time in recent history when we've been forced to significantly curtail consumption, or even the growth rate in consumption? Not switching to a desirable alternative, but just cutting back.
I haven't found one yet.
I haven't found one yet.
Of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future! There's a first time for everything; past performance does not guarantee future results; Thanksgiving turkey metaphor; etc.
But historical examples are a good place to start learning.
But historical examples are a good place to start learning.
Why don't we hit the wall? There are various things going on, but one of them is basic economics. Resource shortages increase prices. Higher prices both reduce demand and increase supply.
The increased supply is both short-term and long-term. Short: formerly unprofitable sources are suddenly profitable at higher prices. Long: investments are made in infrastructure to expand production, and in technology to lower costs or discover high-quality alternatives.
Thus, production is increased well before we literally run out of any resource, and any necessary short-term consumption decreases happen naturally and gently. (Assuming a market is allowed to function, that is.)
But does this simple story *always* play out? What are the most compelling counterexamples? That's what I'm looking for here.
Thanks for all the replies!
So far, the most compelling examples (to me) are important animals/plants that we drove to extinction, such as many large game animals in prehistory. Many people also pointed to a lost plant known to the Romans as silphium. https://twitter.com/JimDMiller/status/1344486046147379202
So far, the most compelling examples (to me) are important animals/plants that we drove to extinction, such as many large game animals in prehistory. Many people also pointed to a lost plant known to the Romans as silphium. https://twitter.com/JimDMiller/status/1344486046147379202
Wood, for various purposes, has also been a problem in the past. A few people mentioned that the people of Easter Island may have wiped themselves out this way. In Britain, wood shortages led to government controls on wood and a shift to coal for smelting https://twitter.com/mschuresko/status/1344472937538015232
Quality soil has also been a limited resource in the past, and may also have led to the collapse of ancient civilizations. A 20th-century example mentioned was the Dust Bowl. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1344682524660809729
Overall, the trend seems to be towards *better* resource management over time. The most devastating examples are the most ancient.
By the time you get to the 18th/19th c., we're anticipating resource shortages and proactively addressing them: sperm whales, elephants, guano, etc.
By the time you get to the 18th/19th c., we're anticipating resource shortages and proactively addressing them: sperm whales, elephants, guano, etc.
(Although maybe the transition off of whale oil was not perfect) https://twitter.com/tlbtlbtlb/status/1344554451550560257
This goes against popular narratives and many people's intuitions, but it shouldn't be surprising. Better knowledge and technology help us monitor resources and deal with shortages. The knowledge includes scientific knowledge and economic statistics (both lacking until recently).
The most compelling modern-day example seems to be helium: a significant, limited, non-synthesizable, non-substitutable resource. We haven't run out of helium yet, but we don't seem to be managing it super-well, with periodic temporary shortages. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1344684836041052166
We should probably also note significant resource shocks, even if we didn't totally run out, such as the oil shocks of the '70s. In the modern era these seem to always have significant political causes (any counterexamples?)
There were a few more examples that are fairly narrow/minor. Certain specific species of fish and other seafood; one species of banana; low-radiation steel. https://twitter.com/avi_eisen/status/1344468466439389186
Many people suggested things that we haven't actually run out of yet but that people are worried about: oil, fertilizer, forest, sand, landfill, etc.
But these shortages are all in the future, and the point of this exercise was to try to learn from the past.
But these shortages are all in the future, and the point of this exercise was to try to learn from the past.
That leaves the externality / environmental damage argument. This is much tougher to analyze, and I need to do more research.
But it's not actually a resource shortage argument, and I do think that literal resource shortage arguments are often made. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1344658307080990722
But it's not actually a resource shortage argument, and I do think that literal resource shortage arguments are often made. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1344658307080990722
(Also, many people suggested that we have a dangerous shortage of rationality, decency, humility, courage, patience, and common sense. Thanks guys)
Anyway, I think it's interesting to tease apart the arguments here:
• Increased consumption is impossible long-term
• It's possible but it would hurt us in other practical ways
• It's possible but it would hurt us in moral ways
• Increased consumption is not even desirable
• Increased consumption is impossible long-term
• It's possible but it would hurt us in other practical ways
• It's possible but it would hurt us in moral ways
• Increased consumption is not even desirable
PS, one more notable minor example: the American Chestnut, a great resource that we pretty much lost (it's not extinct, but now endangered). This wasn't from overconsumption, but from blight (although that's still a part of resource management) https://twitter.com/WILLINTHETHRILL/status/1344729389221761024
