[p2p-research] Scientific American: Does Economics Violate the Laws of Physics?

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-economics-violate-th

Too bad I did not know in advance. It was only a couple hours from where I 
live. It might have been interesting to go. Although I'd probably end up 
arguing about abundance being more likely if we innovate in a Buck Fuller or 
Jacque Fresco or other way, including move into space in the long term. :-)

But yes, we need a better economics that reflects cybernetic principles, and 
that includes some connection with real current resource limits, not some 
mythical thing called "capital" which while including land and machinery, 
also includes fiat dollars of which an infinite number can easily be printed 
or magicked up in the computer.

I totally agree with this from there: "For instance, if a squirrel burns 
energy eating nuts, those nuts had better give the squirrel more energy back 
then it expended, or the squirrel will inevitably die. It is a rule that 
lies at the core of studying animal and plant behavior, and human society 
should be looked at no differently, as even technologically complex 
societies are still governed by EROI."

The same thing can be said for tool wear, for energy going into making solar 
panels, and so on.

However, I would dispute the peak oil issue, as per my "Peak Whale Oil" post 
a while back, which would cause endless arguments, no doubt, same as here. 
:-) They are ignoring the *exponential* growth of alternative energy, which 
is why Peek Oil will be a non issue, same as Y2K was a non-issue, even if it 
in theory might have ended or greatly harmed industrial civilization (like 
with exploding nuclear plants, or accidental weapons launches or the 
collapse of the power grid and so on) had people not spent years working to 
fix all those bugs before the year 2000. But, people did spend those years 
and all that money, because all people are not totally stupid all the time. 
:-) So, one can expect the same for energy alternatives, although it might 
be rougher.

But what is said in that article is:
""
And no amount of technology can fix the problem. Hagens points out that oil 
extraction has evolved by leaps and bounds since the early 1900s, and yet 
companies must expend much more energy to get less and less oil than they 
did back then.
   "It isn't that there's no technology," Hall said. "The question is, 
technology is in a race with depletion, and that's a whole different 
concept. And we think that we can show empirically that depletion is 
winning, because the energy return on investment keeps dropping for gas and 
oil."
   The most pessimistic of the biophysical economics camp sees the 
oil-fueled world economy grinding to a halt soon, possibly within 10 years. 
They are all working to get the message out, but not all of them believe 
their peers in other professions will listen.
"""

And that's probably why it was a good thing I did not go. :-)

So given that, the attitude Hall outlines there, like Catton's, is IHMO 
dysfunction, harmful, and unreasonable given the facts if people really 
studied the subject of renewable energy, like Amory Lovins' and Hunter 
Lovins' work in Brittle Power.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by 
Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon 
study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book 
argues that domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, 
by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to 
the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works 
better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy. the 
preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still 
very current."

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/