[sudhirc]

> In modern times, most scarcity problems are supply chain not actual exhaustion, diamond mines and gold not withstanding. Rare earths aren't rare. Uranium isn't rare. We aren't running out of lithium. Erlich/Simons explores the reality of abundance in the earths crust.

Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously. This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction. Probably that's why most ancient civilizations had rules to only take what's needed from the nature.

For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.

[smogcutter]

> For example in Western Countries, crabs and lobsters were once seen as "poor man's food". They are now a gourmet luxury item.

As an aside, I believe this mostly had to do with refrigeration & tank technology. They need to be kept alive all the way to the consumer. Before that was possible they were only really available to the consumer in a preserved form.

[zosima]

For many commodities the opposite relation is true.

Only when the commodities are used in a high enough quantity is there enough incentive to really try to create as much of them as possible.

I don't think lobster is more scarce these days, than it was in the past. Rather the opposite.

[Turskarama]

It is extremely funny to me that you used lobsters as an example, as fishery collapse is probably the single most common type of resource exhaustion.

[zosima]

The choice of lobster was because I replied to a comment claiming lobster had become a luxury good, due to increasing rarity.

Here is some index of north american lobster catch: http://www.asmfc.org/species/american-lobster

Looks as though it may have stalled a bit since 2015. But before that lobster catch definitely grew a lot.

Obviously with things like lobsters there'll be geographical variations, but I don't think there's any reason to suppose that lobsters have become a luxury good due to scarcity.

[sudhirc]

This paper disagrees with you.

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/suppl_1/i7/62044...

[defrost]

    Evidence of lobster use comprises midden remains, artwork, artefacts, writings about lobsters, and written sources describing the fishing practices of indigenous peoples. 

I can't be the only one that loves a massive untouched midden pile.

+1 for your paper.

[zosima]

No it doesn't. It claims overfishing in many areas. Not a decline in lobster.

[sudhirc]

Seems like I am confused. Are you saying decline due to over fishing is acceptable? Doesn't that contradicts unlimited abundance argument?

[zosima]

Yes, your reply seems a bit disoriented.

Overlobstering is a despicable habit which should be stopped wherever it's happening.

It's just neither driving lobsters status as a luxury good, nor is it significantly affecting the amount of lobster.

[brightlancer]

> Everything eventually becomes rare if not used judiciously.

Who judges what is "judiciously"?

Doomers have been predicting Peak Oil for more than 50 years, but we keep finding more. Malthusians predicted all sorts of awful things, but we keep growing more food, expanding where we build homes, etc.

> This mindset of unlimited supply is flawed. It leads to the eventual destruction.

The mindset that destruction is around the corner is _rarely_ true and more often impedes development which saves lives and improves quality of life.

Nothing is unlimited. But just as we over-fished lobsters and moved onto other food sources, so we will with everything else. Don't panic. Innovate.

[sudhirc]

> Nothing is unlimited. But just as we over-fished lobsters and moved onto other food sources, so we will with everything else. Don't panic. Innovate.

While it is true that nothing is unlimited and humans have historically adapted their behavior when resources become scarce, the argument of not panicking and relying solely on innovation to solve resource depletion concerns is overly optimistic and potentially dangerous.

Firstly, the comparison to over-fishing lobsters and moving on to other food sources oversimplifies the issue of resource depletion on a global scale. While localized shifts in consumption patterns are possible, the depletion of critical resources like fossil fuels, freshwater, and certain minerals poses more complex challenges. Merely assuming that innovation will provide an easy solution overlooks the significant time, effort, and investment required to develop and implement sustainable alternatives.

Secondly, relying solely on innovation to address resource depletion ignores the urgency of the issue. Natural resources are not infinite, and some of them, once depleted, cannot be easily replaced. Delaying action in the hope that future innovations will come to the rescue can lead to irreparable damage to the environment and exacerbate existing global challenges like climate change.

Additionally, innovation itself can be a double-edged sword. While it has the potential to create more efficient and sustainable solutions, it can also contribute to resource depletion when not guided by responsible practices. For example, the rapid advancement of technology can lead to increased electronic waste, which is already a significant environmental problem.

Rather than dismissing concerns and promoting blind faith in innovation, a more prudent approach would involve a combination of strategies. We should focus on both responsible resource management, such as conservation and sustainable practices, and continuous innovation to find alternative solutions. Emphasizing a diversified approach can help mitigate the risks associated with resource depletion and foster a more balanced and resilient future.

Innovation is an essential component of addressing the resource depletion. But we must not overlook the severity of the problem and the need for urgent and responsible action. Relying solely on innovation without taking immediate measures to manage resources responsibly can lead to irreversible consequences for the planet and future generations.