MikeF wrote: >What are "natural resources" ? The advance of technology keeps changing >the definition of "natural resources"
More widening it than changing it I think. >so maybe the meaning of "resource >depletion" needs re-examination from a multidimensional vantage point. Just take it as meaning the general balance of things that the biosphere needs to continue without catastrophic collapse, and, a bit short of that, the resources that four out of five people on the planet require for their sustainable living, regardless of technology. "Sustainable" meaning it'll still be there for their grandchildren's grandchildren. "Regardless of technology" because that's still the condition of half the people on the planet (who cook over woodfires, for instance) - though other people's technology has been inclined to whittle away their resource base, so it's not quite "regardless". >We are entering the age of molecular manipulation and its just possible, >that in the future, we'll be able to turn any form of "matter" into any >"resource" we want. The future offers no guarantees so its wise to >conserve energy and other resources whenever possible, but its also >possible future generations will be "resource" richer than our wildest >dreams. Check this out : http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html Yes, Drexler. That is "just possible". Unfortunately, what will probably carry more weight than its potential is that its development is in the hands of the same wisdomless dumbos who've given us so much else to be less than thankful for. Check this out - "The ETC Century", on the technological challenges of the 21st Century, covers GE, nanotech and more - pdf here: http://etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=159 Have a look at this too, on "old thinking about new technologies": http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous4.html#1511 Technology, Poverty and the Future of the Developing World People who make such objections as these are often branded Luddites. I'm a lot less impressed by technology's raw potential than by how it will be implemented, by whom, on whose behalf, and it whose expense. Which indeed is more or less what the original Luddites were on about - not anti-technology but anti-exploitation. Social justice is more important than context-free ideas of technological progress, and today that often equals ecological justice. >The future offers no guarantees so its wise to >conserve energy and other resources whenever possible Not just wise, it's essential. "Whenever possible" too often means whenever it doesn't conflict with our rapacious lifestyles and insane economic system. We'll have to do a bit better than that. Keith >MikeF. ~~~~ >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Apologies for cross posting. >------ Forwarded Message >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:06:03 +0000 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Earth Can't Meet Human Demand for Resources, Says Study >Earth can't meet human demand for resources, says study >Tuesday, June 25, 2002 >By Christopher Doering, Reuters >WASHINGTON ÷ The consumption of forests, energy, and land by humans is >exceeding the rate at which Earth can replenish itself, according to >research published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of >Sciences. snip ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
