Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: Sustainability Axioms
The notion of sustainability seems to raise a lot of emotion in some forums as being meaningless of as having lost its meaning through overuse and mis-use. As many point out, nothing is forever, often citing the fact that the sun will consume the earth in a few billion years. Personally, I don't like to place a time limit on sustainability because it can raise a number of issues that can be ignored if we don't place a time limit on it (such as what societies do when part of the time limit has expired and how perfect knowledge about resources and environment is never attainable, so we need to adjust our view constantly).
However, Richard Heinberg recognised the mis-use of the word and tried to draw together previous work on the subject. He put together Five Axioms of Sustainability which may characterise a sustainable society. These have generated some discussion in other topics but I don't think there has been a topic dedicated to them. So this is my attempt to generate some discussion to try to determine if the axioms are reasonable as they stand or if they need modification or additions.
I think a reasonable criticism of them is that they are not precise enough, in their wording and, technically, leave them open to slightly different interpretations. However, when I read them, I think the meaning that Heinberg would have hoped to achieve is clear. For example, there has been some criticism of the word "use" in Axiom 4, since it could simply have the same kind of meaning that it would have when one "uses" an implement, having no sustainability implications (since some implements could be used and re-used for hundreds of years). I don't think such criticism is fair, since these Axioms are about sustainability and so would not be applicable to the constant use of a resource that has already been produced. It is clear to me that "use" means consumption, or production, of a resource (in that it can't be produced or consumed again, even if it can be transformed into different products through recycling).
I hope to go through each axiom but not necessarily in order. However, general comments about the axioms are welcome. So let's start with the possibly controversial Axiom 4:
Quote:
4. To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
The rate of depletion is defined as the amount being extracted and used during a specified time interval (usually a year) as a percentage of the amount left to extract.
Discussion: No continuous rate of use of any non-renewable resource is sustainable. However, if the rate of use is declining at a rate greater than or equal to the rate of depletion, this can be said to be a sustainable situation in that society’s dependence on the resource will be reduced to insignificance before the resource is exhausted.
This principle was first stated, in a more generalized and more mathematically rigorous form, by Albert A. Bartlett in his 1986 paper, “Sustained Availability: A Management Program for Non-Renewable Resources.”12 The article’s abstract notes:
Quote:
If the rate of extraction declines at a fixed fraction per unit time, the rate of extraction will approach zero, but the integrated total of the extracted resource between t=0 and t=infinity will remain finite. If we choose a rate of decline of the rate of extraction of the resource such that the integrated total of all future extraction equals the present size of the remaining resource then we have a program that will allow the resource to be available in declining amounts for use forever.
Annually reducing the rate of extraction of a given non-renewable resource by its yearly rate of depletion effectively accomplishes the same thing, but requires only simple arithmetic and layperson’s terms for its explanation.
Estimates of the “amount left to extract,” mentioned in the axiom, are disputable for all non-renewable resources. Unrealistically robust estimates would tend to skew the depletion rate in a downward direction, undermining any effort to attain sustainability via a resource depletion protocol. It may be realistic to assume that people in the future will find ways to extract non-renewable resources more thoroughly, with amounts that would otherwise be left in the ground becoming economically recoverable as a result of higher commodity prices and improvements in extraction technology. Also, exploration techniques are likely to improve, leading to further discoveries of the resource. Thus realistic estimates of ultimately recoverable quantities should be greater than currently known amounts extractable with current technology at current prices. However, it is unrealistic to assume that people in the future will ever be able to economically extract all of a given resource, or that limits of declining marginal returns in the extraction process will no longer apply. Moreover, if discovery rates are currently declining, it is probably unrealistic to assume that discovery rates will increase substantially in the future. Thus for any non-renewable resource prudence dictates adhering to conservative estimates of the “amount left to extract.”
Axiom 4 encapsulates Bartlett’s 7th and 8th Laws of Sustainability. It is also the basis for the Oil Depletion Protocol, first suggested by petroleum geologist Colin J. Campbell in 1996 and the subject of a recent book by the present author.13 The aim of the Oil Depletion Protocol is to reduce global consumption of petroleum in order to avert the crises likely to ensue as a result of declining supply—including economic collapse and resource wars. Under the terms of the Oil Depletion Protocol, oil-importing countries would reduce their imports by the world oil depletion rate (calculated by Campbell at 2.5 percent per year); producers would reduce their domestic production by their national depletion rates.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
In the axiom itself, there is no specific time period for either the measurement of the use (consumption) of the resource or the determination of the depletion rate, although "annually" is mentioned in the discussion. I think there are grounds for having different periods of measurement for different resources (related to knowledge of the resource and estimated size of the resource - where "resource" means "recoverable resource") so it's possible that consumption may rise and fall during sub-periods, provided consumption doesn't exceed the depletion rate in the defined measurement period for that resource. It's also possible that new information about a resource could enable an increase in consumption over the previous period (or, or course, a hugely reduced consumption). But the intention of the axiom is clear; that increasing or steady rates of consumption of finite resources would tend to lead to complete depletion of those resources, or a forced decline in production of those resource that may be difficult to manage.
The quote from Albert Bartlett has also raised some criticism which claims that Bartlett assumes an infinite period of time that the resource can be used. My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this before and found it very interesting. The fact that both parties and all businesses are based on the foundation of unsustainability has really changed my thinking in the last few years. I used to be your typical liberal environmentalist, thinking that we should have laws on air and water pollution, protections for endangered species etc. But, like many here, discovering PO back in 2004 hit me like a punch in the face and I realized how profoundly unsustainable our society was. _________________ One of these now am I too, a fugitive from the gods and a wanderer, at the mercy of raging Strife.
--Empedocles
I think there are grounds for having different periods of measurement for different resources (related to knowledge of the resource and estimated size of the resource - where "resource" means "recoverable resource") so it's possible that consumption may rise and fall during sub-periods, provided consumption doesn't exceed the depletion rate in the defined measurement period for that resource.
Only if you choose to not apply the axiom during those time periods. In that case, given the arbitrary nature of the instantiation, it isn't much of an axiom (ie a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it) since the consequences depend on your interpretation. Along the same lines, we could do the same to axiom one...
Heinberg wrote:
1. (Tainter’s Axiom): Any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably will collapse.
By assuming sustainable use at two discrete points in time, with the time between possibly having unsustainable use. However, since that unsustainable use could lead to the destructive of the society via the destruction of the natural methods that sustain it, it would be sustainable according to Heinberg's axioms due to the time interval chosen and our interpretation of it, but is able to destroy itself. Clearly a contradiction. So... Assuming the axioms don't always hold true isn't very pragmatic and/or axiomatic, since it can result in blatant contradictions.
Like I have said before, since Heinberg referred to rate that must decline, unless you choose to apply axiom four arbitrarily, ie it applies over a certain time period, but not over another, which as an approach to an axiom takes license to say the least, it's just too strong and doesn't describe sustainable in a general manner.
TonyPrep wrote:
But the intention of the axiom is clear; that increasing or steady rates of consumption of finite resources would tend to lead to complete depletion of those resources, or a forced decline in production of those resource that may be difficult to manage.
Axioms do not have intentions open for anything other than literal interpretation. They are simply axioms. Even in the logical version of the definition, an axiom would not have any intentions aside from the initial conditions it establishes by virtue of it's construction. It would be a proposition that is assumed in order to study the consequences. Assumptions about intent, with their inherent bias, are meaningless since the only thing required to change the consequences is changing the axiom.
TonyPrep wrote:
The quote from Albert Bartlett has also raised some criticism which claims that Bartlett assumes an infinite period of time that the resource can be used.
It isn't a claim, it's a fact.
Bartlett wrote:
If the rate of extraction declines at a fixed fraction per unit time, the rate of extraction will approach zero, but the integrated total of the extracted resource between t=0 and t=infinity will remain finite. If we choose a rate of decline of the rate of extraction of the resource such that the integrated total of all future extraction equals the present size of the remaining resource then we have a program that will allow the resource to be available in declining amounts for use forever.
Claims of programs that will allow resource use forever via infinite time, or t=infinity, are as silly as claims that resource use will be available forever due to infinite quantity. Cornocopian ideals to say the least. Any axiom, and/or related information, that uses infinite anything in a finite world is just silly.
TonyPrep wrote:
My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
How can use of a finite resource continue indefinitely? What evidence do you have that use can continue indefinitely? _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
so it's possible that consumption may rise and fall during sub-periods, provided consumption doesn't exceed the depletion rate in the defined measurement period for that resource.
Only if you choose to not apply the axiom during those time periods
That's true, but remember that determining a rate involves deciding on a time period for that measurement. For example, X tonnes per year is a rate and can be measured each year to determine whether consumption is being reduced by the correct amount. It's not practical to measure periods that are infinitely small. If consumption rose by 100% during one month but is reducing at the depletion rate year on year (or whatever period is chosen), then the axiom is met because consumption is reducing appropriately to the depletion rate. Such precise control of the rate is impractical and of no importance unless the resource base is tiny and the consumption rate relatively high, but, in that case, a much smaller period of assessment would be chosen for that resource.
yesplease wrote:
Along the same lines, we could do the same to axiom one
I don't think so. Axiom one is a bit more general, and doesn't touch on time periods at all, leaving that to other axioms. Axiom 1 is about using critical resources sustainably but the definition of what sustainable consumption means is left to other axioms. As I've indicated, the periods of measurement depends on the resource and the consumption rate, so a sensible period would not leave a society open to collapse by using far too much of a critical resource in a short period.
yesplease wrote:
Like I have said before, since Heinberg referred to rate that must decline, unless you choose to apply axiom four arbitrarily, ie it applies over a certain time period, but not over another, which as an approach to an axiom takes license to say the least, it's just too strong and doesn't describe sustainable in a general manner.
I disagree. It describes the characteristics of a sustainable society, in a general way - the specifics need to be worked out by the society (such as determining the periods of assessement for specific resources).
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
But the intention of the axiom is clear; that increasing or steady rates of consumption of finite resources would tend to lead to complete depletion of those resources, or a forced decline in production of those resource that may be difficult to manage.
Axioms do not have intentions open for anything other than literal interpretation.
And yet here we are discussing them. I'll admit that they are too general to apply directly, with no further refinement. I agree that axioms don't have intentions so let me change that to "meaning". The meaning is clear, along the lines I stated.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
The quote from Albert Bartlett has also raised some criticism which claims that Bartlett assumes an infinite period of time that the resource can be used.
It isn't a claim, it's a fact.
No, it's a claim. Richard has quoted Albert Bartlett from a science article. Do you have access to the full article and so can substantiate the Dr Bartlett actually believes that we have an infinite amount of time to use any resource? Personally, it's clear that the quote is intended to show that if consumption of a resource decreases by the rate of depletion, that resource could, theoretically (though probably not practically), be used for as long as humans are around, even in a sustainable society. Remember that the quote was within the discussion of the axiom, not in the axiom itself.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
How can use of a finite resource continue indefinitely? What evidence do you have that use can continue indefinitely?
What sort of evidence do you think is needed? It's very simple. If consumption of a resource decreases by the depletion rate, that resource will never run out completely. As I hinted at above, however, for some resources, it may be that all practical use of that resource would cease. This could happen if the physical amounts available, under the axiom, are so small that nothing useful could be done with it, or if it becomes too energy intensive or uneconomical to extract.
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
so it's possible that consumption may rise and fall during sub-periods, provided consumption doesn't exceed the depletion rate in the defined measurement period for that resource.
Only if you choose to not apply the axiom during those time periods
That's true, but remember that determining a rate involves deciding on a time period f\or that measurement. For example, X tonnes per year is a rate and can be measured each year to determine whether consumption is being reduced by the correct amount. It's not practical to measure periods that are infinitely small.
It can be. Integrator circuits aren't around for no reason, not that we could arbitrarily measure uncountably many points, but we don't need to either. Heinberg stated the rate must decrease. If you think that the rate can increase/stay the same, you don't need to construct elaborate posts about how it isn't practical, or he didn't mean what he wrote... You simply change the axiom.
TonyPrep wrote:
If consumption rose by 100% during one month but is reducing at the depletion rate year on year (or whatever period is chosen), then the axiom is met because consumption is reducing appropriately to the depletion rate.
Fortunately we aren't talking about consumption or depletion directly, just use. And since it must decline, regardless of those two, we must use less of something all the time. Consumption and depletion can come into the picture if you choose to, just like if you choose to define time periods where you won't apply axiom four. But, it's pretty silly to do so since if you're interpreting one axiom different, why can't others be interpreted differently in the same way? For the sake of simplicity, it'd probably be easiest just to change them and look at them logically, as opposed to keeping them and selectively applying them or whatever. Just my opinion of course. Unlike me, you don't have to let logic stand in the way of the general definition of sustainable that you adopt.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Along the same lines, we could do the same to axiom one
I don't think so. Axiom one is a bit more general, and doesn't touch on time periods at all, leaving that to other axioms. Axiom 1 is about using critical resources sustainably but the definition of what sustainable consumption means is left to other axioms. As I've indicated, the periods of measurement depends on the resource and the consumption rate, so a sensible period would not leave a society open to collapse by using far too much of a critical resource in a short period.
Oh, so we can apply axiom four when we want, but not do the same to the other axioms? Yeah sure meng. Like I said, arbitrary axioms for all.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Like I have said before, since Heinberg referred to rate that must decline, unless you choose to apply axiom four arbitrarily, ie it applies over a certain time period, but not over another, which as an approach to an axiom takes license to say the least, it's just too strong and doesn't describe sustainable in a general manner.
I disagree. It describes the characteristics of a sustainable society, in a general way - the specifics need to be worked out by the society (such as determining the periods of assessement for specific resources).
Sure it does. But I'm looking for a useful generation definition of sustainable, not describing characteristics of a sustainable society in general way. The problem with Heinberg's axioms is that they don't describe all sustainable societies. If that's o.k. with you, feel free to use them. It isn't for me.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
But the intention of the axiom is clear; that increasing or steady rates of consumption of finite resources would tend to lead to complete depletion of those resources, or a forced decline in production of those resource that may be difficult to manage.
Axioms do not have intentions open for anything other than literal interpretation.
And yet here we are discussing them. I'll admit that they are too general to apply directly, with no further refinement. I agree that axioms don't have intentions so let me change that to "meaning". The meaning is clear, along the lines I stated.
I think discussing is a bit strong. You're stating that if we look at it via some other interpretation or look at it with some intention, ie something other than what they explicitly wrote, then it wouldn't have problems with it, and I'm saying that if you do the same thing to other axioms they become contradictory. There's no need to do it in the first place. An axiom is interpreted literally and logically, and if we don't like the results, we change the axiom. It's just that simple.
TonyPrep wrote:
No, it's a claim.
No, it's a fact. Bartlett claimed that use according to certain methods allowed for use forever. And referred to this in his model as t-infinity. That's not a claim, it's a fact. Unless of course Heinberg misquoted Bartlett. If I claimed that we could use oil forever because I'm assuming an amount a=infinity in my model, then we can't just turn around and say that isn't what I meant, because it's what I wrote, unless of course I the writer states that their statement was wrong/wasn't what they meant/etc... The same goes for Bartlett's statements just like anyone else's.
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you have access to the full article and so can substantiate the Dr Bartlett actually believes that we have an infinite amount of time to use any resource?
We don't need access to the full article. What Bartlett stated what he stated and is fact unless Heinberg messed up the quote. In that case, Heinberg goofed. If Bartlett goofed up or didn't mean what they wrote, then similarly, then could post something stating that. If you have evidence of either, please provide it. Otherwise, Bartlett wrote what he wrote and it should be read as written, just like it would be with anyone.
TonyPrep wrote:
Personally, it's clear that the quote is intended to show that if consumption of a resource decreases by the rate of depletion, that resource could, theoretically (though probably not practically), be used for as long as humans are around, even in a sustainable society.
Really? So, you're stating that in there, according to the time frame Bartlett used, ala t=infinity/forever, you believe that humans can use a resource?
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
How can use of a finite resource continue indefinitely? What evidence do you have that use can continue indefinitely?
What sort of evidence do you think is needed? It's very simple. If consumption of a resource decreases by the depletion rate, that resource will never run out completely.
I didn't ask you that, I asked you what evidence do you have that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely. In order for a resource to be used, someone needs to use it, in this case we need to use it. What evidence do you have, that resource use can continue indefinitely? The human race can't habit the Earth after around a billion years or so... And indefinite use requires a lot more time than that. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
yesplease wrote:
tonyPrep wrote:
It's not practical to measure periods that are infinitely small.
It can be. Integrator circuits aren't around for no reason, not that we could arbitrarily measure uncountably many points, but we don't need to either. Heinberg stated the rate must decrease. If you think that the rate can increase/stay the same, you don't need to construct elaborate posts about how it isn't practical, or he didn't mean what he wrote... You simply change the axiom.
I don't think that's necessary. As I've said to you many times, the axiom doesn't specify a period for any resource. The specifics are, therefore open to discussion. The axiom, as a general guide, is fine.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
If consumption rose by 100% during one month but is reducing at the depletion rate year on year (or whatever period is chosen), then the axiom is met because consumption is reducing appropriately to the depletion rate.
Fortunately we aren't talking about consumption or depletion directly, just use.
Of course we are, did you not read my previous posts? I admit that, technically, the wording is not precise; some axioms talk about "consumption" some talk about "use". If you think that the axioms are dealing with use of products produced with resources then I think we're done, because we are most definitely not talking about the same thing, nor about what Heinberg is referring to. Axiom 4 also talks about depletion, so we are talking about consumption and depletion of resources.
yesplease wrote:
Oh, so we can apply axiom four when we want, but not do the same to the other axioms?
I don't know where you got that from. Both axioms would apply. Axiom 1 is a bit more general, that's all. I suppose axiom 4 could be subsumed into Axiom 1, except that the latter is talking about critical resources and the former (axiom 4) is talking about any resource. They're kind of connected.
yesplease wrote:
The problem with Heinberg's axioms is that they don't describe all sustainable societies.
Well, this is why this topic was raised. Can you describe the characteristics of a society that is sustainable but doesn't meet all of Heinberg's axioms? And, for the sake of not going over old ground, remember that I've argued that resource consumption can increase over small periods, provided the rate, over a meaningful period for the resource in question, declines at the depletion rate.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you have access to the full article and so can substantiate the Dr Bartlett actually believes that we have an infinite amount of time to use any resource?
We don't need access to the full article.
Of course we do. You made a claim that Barlett believes something ludicrous. You claimed that on the basis of a quote from a full science article, without reading the full article. It's clear, to me, what Richard was trying to achieve, by including the quote but you appear to want to argue on the basis of what you think Bartlett believes. However, how does your odd interpretation of a quote within the discussion part of the axiom devalue the axiom?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
tonyPrep wrote:
It's not practical to measure periods that are infinitely small.
It can be. Integrator circuits aren't around for no reason, not that we could arbitrarily measure uncountably many points, but we don't need to either. Heinberg stated the rate must decrease. If you think that the rate can increase/stay the same, you don't need to construct elaborate posts about how it isn't practical, or he didn't mean what he wrote... You simply change the axiom.
I don't think that's necessary. As I've said to you many times, the axiom doesn't specify a period for any resource. The specifics are, therefore open to discussion.
It specifies circumstances for resource use that must be met under any period in order for a society to be sustainable, according to the axioms. Selectively applying them, well, actually just four, is silly when you don't do the same to the others and could simply change four to reflect something that would include all sustainable societies, not just those who choose to always use less of a given resource.
TonyPrep wrote:
The axiom, as a general guide, is fine.
If you feel that, that's fine. But, that still doesn't make it a good general definition, which understandably is different from a general guide. Hell, if Heinberg had even stated that they were general musings on the subject, I would agree, but he stated...
Heinberg wrote:
I have formulated five axioms (self-evident truths) of sustainability.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
If consumption rose by 100% during one month but is reducing at the depletion rate year on year (or whatever period is chosen), then the axiom is met because consumption is reducing appropriately to the depletion rate.
Fortunately we aren't talking about consumption or depletion directly, just use.
Of course we are, did you not read my previous posts? I admit that, technically, the wording is not precise;
Use doesn't always imply consumption or depletion. That depends on the time scale and resource involved. We can use dirt, in certain contexts, w/o depleting or consuming it. As for the wording in axiom four, the problem isn't that it isn't precise, it's that it's too strict in that case. Use must decline means just that. If Heinberg had instead stated something else, something relatively reasonable, I don't think I'd have an objection to it.
TonyPrep wrote:
some axioms talk about "consumption" some talk about "use". If you think that the axioms are dealing with use of products produced with resources then I think we're done, because we are most definitely not talking about the same thing, nor about what Heinberg is referring to. Axiom 4 also talks about depletion, so we are talking about consumption and depletion of resources.
Like I just stated, use does not always imply depletion. You bring up a good point in that Heinberg seems to use consumption and use somewhat arbitrarily, when they aren't the same per say. Use can result in the original resource still being available after, say in the case of Au, that use, or in the case of oil, use results in something that cannot be re-used, which tends to be termed as consumption. Use does not always have to involve depletion and consumption.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Oh, so we can apply axiom four when we want, but not do the same to the other axioms?
I don't know where you got that from. Both axioms would apply. Axiom 1 is a bit more general, that's all. I suppose axiom 4 could be subsumed into Axiom 1, except that the latter is talking about critical resources and the former (axiom 4) is talking about any resource. They're kind of connected.
I got that from you applying axiom four in some cases, but not others, but then stating ("I don't think so.") I couldn't do the exact same thing to axiom one that you did to axiom four. Apply it over some time intervals, but not over others.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
The problem with Heinberg's axioms is that they don't describe all sustainable societies.
Well, this is why this topic was raised. Can you describe the characteristics of a society that is sustainable but doesn't meet all of Heinberg's axioms? And, for the sake of not going over old ground, remember that I've argued that resource consumption can increase over small periods, provided the rate, over a meaningful period for the resource in question, declines at the depletion rate.
Resource consumption cannot increase according to Heinberg's fourth axiom, unless of course you choose not to apply it over those small periods. Those small time periods will have some rate, so unless you throw out the idea that the rate of use must decrease, for those time periods, according to the axioms, it cannot increase (or stay the same).
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you have access to the full article and so can substantiate the Dr Bartlett actually believes that we have an infinite amount of time to use any resource?
We don't need access to the full article.
Of course we do. You made a claim that Barlett believes something ludicrous. You claimed that on the basis of a quote from a full science article, without reading the full article.
Bartlett stated something ludicrous. I only pointed it out. Unless you have information showing that it isn't what he meant, or maybe that it was some sort of practical joke, it stands. According to what you're stating, we could say that anything isn't necessarily the case because there could still be some unknown piece of information out there that would render it in a different context.
TonyPrep wrote:
It's clear, to me, what Richard was trying to achieve, by including the quote but you appear to want to argue on the basis of what you think Bartlett believes. However, how does your odd interpretation of a quote within the discussion part of the axiom devalue the axiom?
It's clear to me that if Heinberg or Bartlett wanted their writing to be taken as anything other than what it reads as, they would've changed it. You can state all you want that Bartlett didn't mean what he wrote, but that doesn't mean he didn't unless you find compelling evidence of that.
Seriously, if all you can come up with is that the writers didn't mean what they stated, or that you interpret it in a way contrary to how it's written, that's your choice. It isn't logical, but that doesn't seem to be a consideration for a lot of members on this forum.
Until you provide some evidence that Bartlett or Heinberg didn't mean what they wrote. I'm done. General definitions that are only general if you arbitrarily apply certain axioms, ill-defined vocabulary, and ramblings about programs
Quote:
that will allow the resource to be available in declining amounts for use forever.
Are a bit too out there for me.
Believe in your semi-scientific reasoning, that we can use resources indefinitely, all you want. Cornucopian fantasies aren't my cup of tea.
TonyPrep wrote:
My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Re: Sustainability Axioms
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
tonyPrep wrote:
It's not practical to measure periods that are infinitely small.
It can be. Integrator circuits aren't around for no reason, not that we could arbitrarily measure uncountably many points, but we don't need to either. Heinberg stated the rate must decrease. If you think that the rate can increase/stay the same, you don't need to construct elaborate posts about how it isn't practical, or he didn't mean what he wrote... You simply change the axiom.
I don't think that's necessary. As I've said to you many times, the axiom doesn't specify a period for any resource. The specifics are, therefore open to discussion.
It specifies circumstances for resource use that must be met under any period in order for a society to be sustainable, according to the axioms. Selectively applying them, well, actually just four, is silly when you don't do the same to the others and could simply change four to reflect something that would include all sustainable societies, not just those who choose to always use less of a given resource.
TonyPrep wrote:
The axiom, as a general guide, is fine.
If you feel that, that's fine. But, that still doesn't make it a good general definition, which understandably is different from a general guide. Hell, if Heinberg had even stated that they were general musings on the subject, I would agree, but he stated...
Heinberg wrote:
I have formulated five axioms (self-evident truths) of sustainability.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
If consumption rose by 100% during one month but is reducing at the depletion rate year on year (or whatever period is chosen), then the axiom is met because consumption is reducing appropriately to the depletion rate.
Fortunately we aren't talking about consumption or depletion directly, just use.
Of course we are, did you not read my previous posts? I admit that, technically, the wording is not precise;
Use doesn't always imply consumption or depletion. That depends on the time scale and resource involved. We can use dirt, in certain contexts, w/o depleting or consuming it. As for the wording in axiom four, the problem isn't that it isn't precise, it's that it's too strict in that case. Use must decline means just that. If Heinberg had instead stated something else, something relatively reasonable, I don't think I'd have an objection to it.
TonyPrep wrote:
some axioms talk about "consumption" some talk about "use". If you think that the axioms are dealing with use of products produced with resources then I think we're done, because we are most definitely not talking about the same thing, nor about what Heinberg is referring to. Axiom 4 also talks about depletion, so we are talking about consumption and depletion of resources.
Like I just stated, use does not always imply depletion. You bring up a good point in that Heinberg seems to use consumption and use somewhat arbitrarily, when they aren't the same per say. Use can result in the original resource still being available after, say in the case of Au, that use, or in the case of oil, use results in something that cannot be re-used, which tends to be termed as consumption. Use does not always have to involve depletion and consumption.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Oh, so we can apply axiom four when we want, but not do the same to the other axioms?
I don't know where you got that from. Both axioms would apply. Axiom 1 is a bit more general, that's all. I suppose axiom 4 could be subsumed into Axiom 1, except that the latter is talking about critical resources and the former (axiom 4) is talking about any resource. They're kind of connected.
I got that from you applying axiom four in some cases, but not others, but then stating ("I don't think so.") I couldn't do the exact same thing to axiom one that you did to axiom four. Apply it over some time intervals, but not over others.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
The problem with Heinberg's axioms is that they don't describe all sustainable societies.
Well, this is why this topic was raised. Can you describe the characteristics of a society that is sustainable but doesn't meet all of Heinberg's axioms? And, for the sake of not going over old ground, remember that I've argued that resource consumption can increase over small periods, provided the rate, over a meaningful period for the resource in question, declines at the depletion rate.
Resource consumption cannot increase according to Heinberg's fourth axiom, unless of course you choose not to apply it over those small periods. Those small time periods will have some rate, so unless you throw out the idea that the rate of use must decrease, for those time periods, according to the axioms, it cannot increase (or stay the same).
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you have access to the full article and so can substantiate the Dr Bartlett actually believes that we have an infinite amount of time to use any resource?
We don't need access to the full article.
Of course we do. You made a claim that Barlett believes something ludicrous. You claimed that on the basis of a quote from a full science article, without reading the full article.
Bartlett stated something ludicrous. I only pointed it out. Unless you have information showing that it isn't what he meant, or maybe that it was some sort of practical joke, it stands. According to what you're stating, we could say that anything isn't necessarily the case because there could still be some unknown piece of information out there that would render it in a different context.
TonyPrep wrote:
It's clear, to me, what Richard was trying to achieve, by including the quote but you appear to want to argue on the basis of what you think Bartlett believes. However, how does your odd interpretation of a quote within the discussion part of the axiom devalue the axiom?
It's clear to me that if Heinberg or Bartlett wanted their writing to be taken as anything other than what it reads as, they would've changed it. You can state all you want that Bartlett didn't mean what he wrote, but that doesn't mean he didn't unless you find compelling evidence of that.
Seriously, if all you can come up with is that the writers didn't mean what they stated, or that you interpret it in a way contrary to how it's written, that's your choice. It isn't logical, but that doesn't seem to be a consideration for a lot of members on this forum.
Until you provide some evidence that Bartlett or Heinberg didn't mean what they wrote. I'm done. General definitions that are only general if you arbitrarily apply certain axioms, ill-defined vocabulary, and ramblings about programs
Quote:
that will allow the resource to be available in declining amounts for use forever.
Are a bit too out there for me.
Believe in the semi-scientific reasoning, that we can use resources indefinitely, all you want. Cornucopian fantasies aren't my cup of tea.
TonyPrep wrote:
My own interpretation is that it was a semi-scientific reasoning for showing that use of a finite resource can continue indefinitely, provided it is used in decreasing amounts.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
