Reply #14: If we look at factual stats, though, we see that as technology develops it becomes more efficient. [View All]

[joshcryer]

From 1970 until now per capita energy usage changed very little (it did go up but not significantly). Why is this? In the same time frame microwaves, computers, TVs became ubiquitous. Along with Internet, of course. It's because things like "Energy Star" said "Dishwashers, TVs, refrigerators, washer/dryers, all appliances should meet a gold standard." So while *more* new appliances came online, and why *more* new ways of interacting with the environment were invented, the *overall* net result was that energy, per device, was lowered, and that individual energy usage was mostly unchanged.

Now a days we have clothing washers that can wash a load of clothes for a cup or two of water per piece of clothing. Back in the 70s it was probably closer to a gallon.

Your iPod being full is largely irrelevant, because we are still not at a state of total human consumption limit. Your iPod can't hold all music ever made ever recorded, ever. In 20 years devices will exist that can hold all media ever made, every movie, every piece of music. Are we then going to believe that people will still desire devices that *hold more information than that which exists*? It's kinda silly. And to top it off, when we look at the past and future of technological efficiency, we see that it covers all bases. You look at movies or TV shows. First we had MPEG1, then MPEG2, now we have h.264. Each iteration halved the size of video files while more than doubling the resolution. If Tim Sweeney is correct, in 10-15 years we will have "perfectly realistic graphics." At that point whole movies will require the storage space a thousand times less! Instead of filming actors on a set, cutting, splicing, and distributing the resulting film, you distribute the CG models and sets, all utilizing procedural graphics and the like.

The substitution argument is one of economics, I make no statements about economics, merely the basic ecology of humans (which is different from other animals in that our limits are internal, and theirs are external). I only say that "technological progress" (not to be confused with "progress") does result, eventually, inevitably, in a resource wall. I can only drink a few gallons of water a day, I can only eat so many cheeseburgers.

So how do we solve this? Well, we take human ecology seriously, all waste produced, we recycle. All. We're heading in that direction but we're still some ways off. Until we do this, until we can produce food without relying no natural gas produced fertilizers, until we can produce energy without relying on coal or any other non-renewable resource, we aren't going to be able to exist without harming our natural environment.

The argument is that we can't. I have been hearing the argument in whatever form or another for about 20 years. I am simply not convinced by the argument.