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

Fri Oct 30 00:18:06 CET 2009

I agree it was a poor summary of your position, what I meant was that you
don't see the conversion as a problem, hence peak oil is real, but not a
problem,

Michel

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> I don't mind playing the bad guy...but in fairness, I've never said peak
> oil is bull. I've read the eponymous blog for 3 or more years and am
> definitely a believer.
>
> I do doubt Lovins on nuclear.  But I am increasingly of a mind that peak
> uranium is a problem. Regardless, I remain pro-nuclear because the greatest
> threat to humanity is climate change...I am starting to think seriously
> about changing my number one threat to the loss of meaningful work...but I
> make a poor luddite. There are more computers in my house than beating
> hearts...and I have fish.
>
> I don't know how to get at this big issue Paul has really brought to my
> attention...but I think it is real.  It is really the obsolescence of
> humanity.
>
> I don't know of Hazel, but anyone who is a friend of ethical markets is a
> friend of mine.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Interesting exchange here,
>>
>> Ryan says, Peak Oil is bull, because Amory Lovins has studied the issue;
>> Stan said a few weeks ago, Amory Lovings is bull.
>>
>> If Amory is bull, then Peak Oil isn't,
>>
>> If Amory is not bull, then he is right about nuclear energy too, that he
>> has studied even more
>>
>> My take: the difficulties in transitioning towards renewable energies are
>> real and have been well studied, also based on the historical record of
>> technological progress and energy conversion, so descent will likely go
>> faster than re-ascent, leading to a series of crises in the transition
>> period. We cannot have a simple magical belief that the market and
>> technology will solve this in an easy way. And Amory Lovins, while right in
>> my opinion about nuclear energy, is over optimistic on the capacity of
>> capitalism to solve this fundamental problem.
>>
>> And indeed, neoclassical economics violates the laws of physics, because
>> it assumes infinite growth in a context of unlimited resources, or, that the
>> market will magically solve them, and both are fundamentally mistaken.
>>
>> So I must agree with the Scientific American and the author here, and I'm
>> sure Hazel Henderson, who has deeply studied the limitations of neoclassical
>> economics, would agree, though I think Hazel is quite optimistic about the
>> potential of ethical green business, see her engagement with the Climate
>> Prosperity Alliance
>>
>> (quote from Hazel: "
>>
>> *“Marking the 20th Anniversary of SRI in the Rockies offers more than an
>> opportunity to review the hard-won progress of investors to prove that
>> socially responsible investing is viable and now clearly out-performs
>> traditional mainstream investing. Since the credit crises of 2008-2009, we
>> can now assert with confidence that investing for long-term sustainability
>> and taking ESG factors as material to asset valuation could have actually
>> helped avert these crises. We investors are now winning the paradigm battle
>> and cite the evidence to show that the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is
>> bunk and by the same token show that the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), the
>> Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and, yes, even the sacred tenets of the
>> “rational investor” and the Black-Scholes Merton Options Pricing Model will
>> soon be part of history.")*
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Michel*
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>   On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
>> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>  Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091030/d4042a8f/attachment.html>