It really rustles me when libertarians try to dismiss concerns over the draining of non-renewable resources by reminding you that as supply dwindles, prices go up, so we need not worry since as prices go up and consumers demand alternatives, somebody will think of something and voila, the market will save the day once again. Firstly, this treats supply and demand the same way that adaptationism treats natural selection. In other words, neither NS nor S&D are physical laws, theyre emergent mechanisms and are thus contingent rather than basic. In the case of S&D, one of the contingencies is technical limitations - for example, there are more than likely markets for flying cars and robot butlers, but there are no suppliers of flying cars or robot butlers because nobody has figured out how to make a viable, consumer-accessible flying car or robot butler. Now maybe one or the other or both will come along at some point in the future, but are you really gonna bet on it? So secondly, if an economy is structured around a non-renewable resource, it is because (in part) said resource is highly competitive. As such, once this resource dwindles below the point of being economical, the economy will have to restructure itself and lose the advantages that said resource provided. Of course, its possible that a better technology can substitute the lost resource and we can retain our lavish way of life, but its also possible that no practical substitute will be found and well have no choice but to revert to a more modest way of living. Now, Im no expert on engineering or geology or ecology, and Im not trying to say that one position or another is set in stone (no pun intended). However, the issue of non-renewable resources cannot be handily dispatched with by appeal to economic reasoning, and neither can the input of experts from the aforementioned fields (whose views, so far as I know, vary quite a bit).
Posted on: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 03:17:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015