JohnN Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Could someone explain the idea that resources are finite and how this is applied to economic thinking? It would appear to me that resources are near infinite, there is an entire universe waiting to be harvest and mined. While I get that humanity cannot currently access the resources outside of earth, this does not mean that the resources are limited. It means instead that our capacity to effectively utilize resources are limited. Fossil fuels may run out but if someone develops nuclear fusion, the energy problem is solved. I don't see how the idea that resources are finite can describe anything other than peoples anxiety that their survival is in jeopardy. Instead I tend to think that resources are infinite, limited only by our individual capacity to access them. This implies that instead of fearing a tougher future, we should think about how to build a better future from the near limitless possibilities. What am I missing?
Tweak Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Well if its finite or not matters. You need to be able to reach whatever resources you want to get your hands on. If something exists in the ground and you dont have the means to get all the way down you will have to see it as finite resource since you cant get it anyway. "This implies that instead of fearing a tougher future, we should think about how to build a better future from the near limitless possibilities."- These are just words with no substance. Just because something is finite doesn't mean that there will be a shortage. Thus one could reach a better future when it comes to material needs. We don´t need to fear anything when ut comes to resources as long as we can achieve a free market where the allocation of resources with alternative uses is free to flow where it is needed, this will also give the momentum needed to go to space as you talked about with knowledge, the materials and machines needed to find these next resources- the free market will create an incentive to do just that.
Jer Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Could someone explain the idea that resources are finite and how this is applied to economic thinking? It would appear to me that resources are near infinite, there is an entire universe waiting to be harvest and mined. While I get that humanity cannot currently access the resources outside of earth, this does not mean that the resources are limited. It means instead that our capacity to effectively utilize resources are limited. Fossil fuels may run out but if someone develops nuclear fusion, the energy problem is solved. I don't see how the idea that resources are finite can describe anything other than peoples anxiety that their survival is in jeopardy. Instead I tend to think that resources are infinite, limited only by our individual capacity to access them. What am I missing? You answered your question. It's about access. Similar to way that a god in another dimension with no access to ours and undetectable to us is the same as nonexistent, infinite resources which are inaccessible to us are useless and effectively finite. We just need some exotic matter to power one of these and the zeitgeist will arrive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
J. D. Stembal Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 It is practically impossible to actually run out of a finite resource. We will stop mining petroleum deposits long before all of them are totally depleted because increased scarcity will inflate the price. As the price rises, consumers will seek cheaper alternatives, or miners will implement technology to extract petroleum more efficiently (hydraulic fracking, resonant radio waves), thus effectively lowering the price with greater supply. We can never run out of it, however, because before the last drop of oil is harvested, the price will be too high for it to be effectively used as an industrial resource. Then, there's the peanuts on a plane analogy. If you are stranded on a coral reef in a downed plane loaded with bags of peanuts, you will never find the last peanut in order to eat it because the plane will be filled with spent bags and peanut shells. The amount of time and energy you would have to expend to find the last bag of nuts would not be worth the effort. 1
Libertus Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 There are actually two common meanings of the word "scarce", one means "finite" or "non-abundant" and the other means "rivalrous". Property rights are needed not because resources are finite, but because they are *rivalrous*, meaning, their usage by one person impedes upon the usage by another person. It doesn't matter how many cars are on the planet, but if I use a specific car to drive North, you can't use that same car at the same moment to drive South. It doesn't matter how much water is in the oceans, because that glass of water I'm drinking, right now, is mine and you can't have it. This explains why we need a concept of property rights. And those are the basis for libertarianism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29 2
LovePrevails Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 great qualification! thanks! There are actually two common meanings of the word "scarce", one means "finite" or "non-abundant" and the other means "rivalrous".
QueechoFeecho Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I think the term "finite" is commonly used as shorthand to represent the idea of not just the quantity of a resource in existence, but also how much of it is accessible.
shirgall Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I think the term "finite" is commonly used as shorthand to represent the idea of not just the quantity of a resource in existence, but also how much of it is accessible. You can add "available" as a further tightening of supply, be it because of logistics of travel, or merely because only so many people want to sell it at the moment, rather than use it for something. Efficiency hates inventory, but wild fluctuations in supply create scarcity.
Crallask Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I think the term "finite" is commonly used as shorthand to represent the idea of not just the quantity of a resource in existence, but also how much of it is accessible. I listened to the economist GP Maniche over viewing Keynesian theory and he concurred by saying that we wouldn't think of oxygen as scarce because it's so easily accessible. When in reality, oxygen is so bafflingly scarce it's more rare than gold on a universe scale. Think of all the planets, moons, and etc that have gold yet no oxygen. We freely use this scarce resource just because the access is so available that any form if allocation would be inefficient.
JohnN Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Thanks for everyones responses. My issue still exists with the commonly used phase, the other half of which I did not talk about, "human wants/needs are infinite". If resources being finite means, scarce in a specific moment (for instance I do not have a pen or pencil in this room) as opposed to meaning the knowledge of their existence, than what does human wants/needs are infinite mean. The second part of the saying, should, if it is to make sense, be held to the same standard of referring to a specific moment and the accessibility. However, all the wants of a person are not accessible at any moment. For instance I am thinking about this topic, and not thinking about my next meal; i just ate. I am not thinking about many things right now, I would therefor not call my wants infinite. I find the phase, "resources are finite, human wants are infinite" to be a poor representation of what is happening. I think that it would be better stated that "wants do not always align with available resources".
afterzir Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 Even if those resources are infinite, the resource of time isn't.
Libertus Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Human needs are infinite, but that has no bearing on any number of resources that are being used in order to fulfill them. We can make more out of less. Human needs are infinite in a sense that, whenever our most basic needs like clothing and food are being covered, we find new needs - for example education and philosophy. And when we then have access to such things, we might need better transportation and art and culture... meaning, the ladder of wants and needs is endless - we always strive for more and better things. What is commonly overlooked, is, that we don't necessarily consume more and more resources while we climb this ladder; we also produce more resources, and make more out of less at the same time, the wealthier we become. We are not just using more energy than 1000 years ago, but we're using energy much, much more efficiently. we don't just consume more food, we have a much more efficient way of feeding ourselves. If you just look at infinite needs and wants on the one hand and finite resources on the other, you can easily overlook this crucial development.
Recommended Posts