[FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum

Thu Apr 15 15:44:17 EDT 2021

Nick,

Simple, because the technology to get copper out of the earth and convert
it into a usable form is developing faster than population rise and
supplies dwindling.
My argument is that exactly this has been happening for centuries, why
would it suddenly stop now?
Going back to the 1980 bet between Simon and Ehlrig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager. According to
Ehlrig we should have run out of resources long ago, but technological
development made a big difference. Another example, the US was on her way
to run out of oil a couple of decades ago and is now an exporter of oil.

I repeat, I'm not saying it WILL happen. All I'm saying is not to assume
technological development HAS to end end doom HAS to happen. We just don't
know what the future will bring and there are people like David Deutsch
that see a very bright future for humanity.

Back to copper, I quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper :

Julian Simon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Lincoln_Simon> was a
senior fellow at the Cato Institute
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute> and a professor of business
and economics. In his book *The Ultimate Resource 2
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource>* (first printed in
1981 and reprinted in 1998), he extensively criticizes the notion of "peak
resources", and uses copper as one example. He argues that, even though
"peak copper" has been a persistent scare since the early 20th century,
"known reserves" grew at a rate that outpaced demand, and the price of
copper was not rising but falling over the long run. For example, even
though world production of copper in 1950 was only one-eighth of what it
was in early-2000s, known reserves were also much lower at the time –
around 100 million metric tons – making it appear that the world would run
out of copper in 40 to 50 years at most.

Simon's own explanation for this development is that the very notion of
known reserves is deeply flawed,[39]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper#cite_note-39> as it does not
take into account changes in mining profitability. As richer mines are
exhausted, developers turn their attention to poorer sources of the element
and eventually develop cheap methods of extracting it, raising known
reserves. Thus, for example, copper was so abundant 5000 years ago,
occurring in pure form as well as in highly concentrated copper ores, that
prehistoric peoples were able to collect and process it with very basic
technology. As of the early 21st century, copper is commonly mined from
ores that contain 0.3% to 0.6% copper by weight. Yet, despite the material
being far less widespread, the cost of, for example, a copper pot was
vastly lower in the late 20th century than 5000 years ago.[40]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper#cite_note-40>

Simon essentially states that not all viable copper has been discovered and
that not all technological advancements in mining and refining have
occurred, so statements that the point of peak copper has been or will be
reached must be false. Simon supports his argument by showing that copper
supplies have increased and prices have fallen.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 21:13, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pieter,
>
>
>
> I meant the “has to be” a bit ironically.  The sound of an ugly fact
> puncturing a beautiful theory.  Psssssst!
>
>
>
> If I were to believe that populations were rising, that copper use was
> rising,  that copper supplies were flat or dwindling, why would I not
> expect copper prices to be rising?
>
>
>
> Which of my assumptions is wrong.
>
>
>
> Or is it your expectation that we will develop a plastic with the
> conductive properties of copper?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:03 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
> I'm not with you, what HAS to be wrong?
>
> It's impossible to predict the future, anything could happen. I'm
> particularly attracted to the views of David Deutsch. I quote from his
> https://www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/ :
> "  The resulting stream of ever-improving explanations has potentially  *infinite
> reach*: we are subject only to the laws of physics, and they impose no
> upper limit to what we can eventually understand, control, and achieve.  "
>
> Life on earth is good and is getting better and better for all of us.
> Sure, a disaster could strike, nothing is inevitable, but I can see no
> reason why the progress we have made HAS to stop. Why?
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 20:11, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pieter,
>
>
>
> That just HAS to be wrong.  What am I missing, here?  NOT a rhetorical
> question.
>
>
>
> Does anybody know, in orders of magnitude, the relation between the
> potential rooftop gain and the total energy needs of a place like Santa Fe?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 11:58 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
>
>
>
> Yeah, just like we were seriously running out of stuff in 1980
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
> But of course, it's different this time around
>
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 19:41, Merle Lefkoff <merlelefkoff at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Nick, I think we have an energy supply problem.  We don't have enough
> stuff left in the ground to dig up to supply our technology much longer at
> a price anyone can afford.  I have a colleague who has calculated that we
> will run out of copper in three years, as just one example.  My
> understanding is that copper wire conducts most of our electricity.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:17 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Merle, and all,
>
>
>
> A naïve question:  Do we have an energy supply problem or do we have an
> energy distribution problem?   For starters, let there be a solar collector
> on the roof of every house in santa fe, roughly the area of the roof
> (roofly the area of the rough?) .  Assuming energy were entirely miscible,
> what proportion of the total energy needs (except food, of course) of Santa
> Feans would that generate.  I assume hundreds of percents, right?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:51 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A Theory of (Almost) Everything - IEEE Spectrum
>
>
>
> Almost, but not quite, Jochen.  He doesn't know about embodied energy.  A
> motor car has an embodied energy contents of 20 800k kWh, while an electric
> car's embodied energy amounts to 34 700 kWh.  Perhaps if he knew this he
> wouldn't be so optimistic.  We are racing toward our doom.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>
> Interesting IEEE podcast: an interview with Václav Smil, who wrote a book
> about "Grand Transitions", similar to "The Major Transitions in
> Evolution" from John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry
>
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/geek-life/history/a-theory-of-almost-everything
>
>
>
> -J.
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
>
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> twitter: @merle110
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
>
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
>
>
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
>
> twitter: @merle110
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210415/ad6954e7/attachment.html>