Political Crossfire Forums

[evil muppet]

Many many moons ago someone took out a patent on the internal combustion engine. The guy didn't invent the engine mind you but was instead a patent lawyer. He took out the patent and spent a long time in the process so that it would be issued at about the time the automobile was starting to take off. The patent was very vague and there was never a single engine built according to this patent.

He then used the patent to demand royalties from all the auto manufacturers at the time and an industry. The little guy had hard times competing industry was able to control the actions of individual companies. Bad things happened.

Then Henry Ford decided that he wasn't going to pay this guy royalties. It went to court. Many great speeches were made and at the end of the day everyone hugged and made whoopie. Then end.

THere can be a case made for some intellectual property. Copywrite, some patents, and other things. Companies copywritting the human genome is definately beyond reason. The individuals should be given credit for their discovery, like a plake and their name in a book but not money whenever someone begins researching. I believe someone has a patent/copywrite on proscribing Vitamin B12 or something retarded like that. A doctor cannot write about that vitamin without paying royalties.

Needless to say. while some intellectual property laws might be good. We have clearly now gone to the excess to the point of destroying and limiting technological development.

[cap'n queasy]

Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

True, but not in the same way. I could reverse engineer Coca-cola and sell it legally. Coke as no patent or legal protection on its formula.

However, its formula is its secret. It is an asset, and like any other asset, it is against the law to steal it, which generally is what trade secret laws protect.

Coca cola's "secret formula" is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

You can read the ingredients on the side of the bottle.

[gavnook]

cap'n queasy wrote: Iriemon wrote: Nathyn wrote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: So, for instance, I was watching a documentary on soft drinks a while back, where the documenters had the chance to visit the Dr. Pepper factory. The factory manager explained the basic process behind creating soda, but then later on said he couldn't go into any more of the specific details, because Dr. Pepper's formula is secret, as well as some of the technology behind it.

Trade secrets are not the same thing as intellectual property. In fact, one given purpose of a patent system is to encourage innovators to publish technology they might otherwise keep as trade secrets. This was Thomas Jefferson's reason for supporting patents. Of course, thousands and thousands of patents have been issued for things that never could be trade secrets.


I am very strongly opposed to patent law. Innovation is good because it makes labor more productive, life more enjoyable, and the previously impossible possible. This is all the encouragement it needs.
"Trade secrets," are protected by law, though, too.

True, but not in the same way. I could reverse engineer Coca-cola and sell it legally. Coke as no patent or legal protection on its formula.

However, its formula is its secret. It is an asset, and like any other asset, it is against the law to steal it, which generally is what trade secret laws protect.

Coca cola's "secret formula" is nothing more than a marketing ploy.

You can read the ingredients on the side of the bottle.

You can read the ingredients, but that won't tell you exactly what's in it. The quantities aren't mentioned and many things can be lumped in under "natural flavors" and stuff like that. Still, you're right, the exact formula isn't a secret, and reproducing it is not a crime. You just can't call it Coca-Cola, which is all it takes.

[ieatfood]

I think it is fairly short sighted to advocate the elimination of intellectual property rights. So if we got rid of IP, sure we would be able to make use of protected technology today. But this technology was created becuase IP was in place. Without IP, this technology wouldn't even exist. By taking away IP, you are ensuring that future technology will not be advanced. Is that really better?

We need to find a balance between developing new technologies and making effecient use of the technolgy we have. It's not an "either, or" situation.

[RueTheDay]

ieatfood wrote: I think it is fairly short sighted to advocate the elimination of intellectual property rights. So if we got rid of IP, sure we would be able to make use of protected technology today. But this technology was created becuase IP was in place. Without IP, this technology wouldn't even exist. By taking away IP, you are ensuring that future technology will not be advanced. Is that really better?

We need to find a balance between developing new technologies and making effecient use of the technolgy we have. It's not an "either, or" situation.

While IP laws provide an incentive for certain types of innovation beyond what a free market provides, it's silly to suggest that none of today's technology would exist without IP laws. One need only look at Linux and the open source movement to see that innovation without IP is not only possible but actually happening.

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think it is fairly short sighted to advocate the elimination of intellectual property rights. So if we got rid of IP, sure we would be able to make use of protected technology today. But this technology was created becuase IP was in place. Without IP, this technology wouldn't even exist. By taking away IP, you are ensuring that future technology will not be advanced. Is that really better?

We need to find a balance between developing new technologies and making effecient use of the technolgy we have. It's not an "either, or" situation.

While IP laws provide an incentive for certain types of innovation beyond what a free market provides, it's silly to suggest that none of today's technology would exist without IP laws. One need only look at Linux and the open source movement to see that innovation without IP is not only possible but actually happening.
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.
Why is that? If I invent something, should I have no protection when it comes to benfitting from my invention? Why be an Edison, when your inventions will not benefit you?

[cap'n queasy]

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.
Why is that? If I invent something, should I have no protection when it comes to benfitting from my invention? Why be an Edison, when your inventions will not benefit you?

And why not move somewhere where there are intellectual property rights, if you are an inventor.

Eliminating them would only cause a "brain drain" to occur.

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote: a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.
Yeah, like more stuff and better stuff. Works for me.

Quote: b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.
Populations generally increase, so no such "promotion" is needed.

Quote: c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.
At least, in order to keep wealth per person at the same level, yes.

Quote: Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, over-consumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.
You're playing fast and loose with the prefix "over" here. How many people constitutes "overpopulation?" How much consumption constitutes "over-consumption?" Just what is "overproduction?" Typical flawed Malthusian logic.

Hay! I didn't know what you meant by "Malthusian logic" so, I looked it up on wiki. I found a page on "Thomas Robert Malthus". What a guy! Thanks for the reference.

When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.

When industries consume natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, that is overconsumption.

When industries expand and grow not to meet demand but to increase demand, that is overproduction.

The world runs on oil. There is only so much oil in the ground. Some people say there's a lot but, nobody really knows. One thing is for sure, the faster we use it, the sooner we loose it. Despite this, our economy is designed so that great profits can be made from overproduction. Naturally, this means producers are overconsuming the environment- raping the damn planet! All the wonderful bountiful production makes room for more people so, we increase immigration and procreation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that we're running full steam straight off a cliff. Once the older oil wells around the world start sucking air, oil prices are going to jump hard. Many, if not all, countries will be devastated by this. Their economies will no longer be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ their people thus, they will end up suffering from conditions of overpopulation. Economic and political tensions will lead to crime and war and a lot of people will end up dying by force and famine.

[Free Thinkr]

cap'n queasy wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.
Why is that? If I invent something, should I have no protection when it comes to benfitting from my invention? Why be an Edison, when your inventions will not benefit you?

And why not move somewhere where there are intellectual property rights, if you are an inventor.

Eliminating them would only cause a "brain drain" to occur.
Yeah, assuming there was somewhere where IP rights were accepted. But, nonetheless, I definitely agree that having no patents would decrease the incentive for innovation.

[Free Thinkr]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote: a) Production is proportional to consumption, therefore, we must promote an increase in consumption in order to increase production.
Yeah, like more stuff and better stuff. Works for me.

Quote: b) Consumption is proportional to the population, therefore, we must increase the population in order to increase consumption.
Populations generally increase, so no such "promotion" is needed.

Quote: c) Population is proportional to production, therefore, we must increase production in order to increase the population.
At least, in order to keep wealth per person at the same level, yes.

Quote: Thus we end up promoting overpopulation, over-consumption and overproduction until a sever lack of resources forces production down. Then, the massive populations of the world will be forced to drop as well- one way or another- until consumption falls in line with production again.
You're playing fast and loose with the prefix "over" here. How many people constitutes "overpopulation?" How much consumption constitutes "over-consumption?" Just what is "overproduction?" Typical flawed Malthusian logic.

Hay! I didn't know what you meant by "Malthusian logic" so, I looked it up on wiki. I found a page on "Thomas Robert Malthus". What a guy! Thanks for the reference.
Hmm, well, I'm always glad when I prompt someone to think, but I'm disheartened to find someone adhering to flawed logic.

Quote: When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.
How can this occur, in your opinion? Save, of course, for a population of gimps?

Quote: When industries consume natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, that is overconsumption.
I'd agree, except I point out that this has never occurred in the history of industry; nor will it occur within our lifetimes.

Quote: When industries expand and grow not to meet demand but to increase demand, that is overproduction.
When has this ever happened? We hear constantly of "overproduction," but is it because of lack of demand? No. It is because those who demand haven't the means to acquire such wealth.

Quote: The world runs on oil. There is only so much oil in the ground. Some people say there's a lot but, nobody really knows. One thing is for sure, the faster we use it, the sooner we loose it.
This is true, but you miss that it does so largely out of simple convenience; it is more economical at this point to use oil than alternatives.

Quote: Despite this, our economy is designed so that great profits can be made from overproduction.
Nonsense. The suffix "over" implies a negative.

Quote: Naturally, this means producers are overconsuming the environment- raping the damn planet!
So the Malthus' want you to believe. But, then, the Malthus' thought our planet could never sustain 6 billion people.

Quote: All the wonderful bountiful production makes room for more people so, we increase immigration and procreation.
Sure. Awesome.

Quote: It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that we're running full steam straight of a cliff. Once the older oil wells around the world start sucking air, oil prices are going to jump hard. Many, if not all, countries will be devastated by this. Their economies will no longer be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ their people thus, they will end up suffering from conditions of overpopulation. Economic and political tensions will lead to crime and war and a lot of people will end up dying by force and famine.
Nah, we'll simply move to alternate energy sources. Man is an animal unlike any other, our adaptability is what defines us. I have little doubt that we'll adapt to use other energy sources; many already exist, but are simply not economical with the relatively-cheap oil still accessible. Malthusian doctrine is the domain of the haters of mankind, and it's sad to see it exercised these days, despite its obviously-fallacious nature. 10 minutes thought should easily demonstrate why such notions are without merit.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.
Why is that? If I invent something, should I have no protection when it comes to benfitting from my invention? Why be an Edison, when your inventions will not benefit you?

you are free to benefit as you please: you can benefit from its direct use, or by being the first to bring it to market, or, if it valuable enough and is of a particular nature then other opportunities might arise where you could, through use of voluntary, agreed upon contracts, allow others to lease or use your product with the express understanding that they are not to reproduce or otherwise engage in trade regarding the product or a derivative thereof (a private version of IP). Granted, only some products are suited for such clauses and contracts.

Why be an Edison? Because it IS beneficial but mostly its human curiosity and desire to alleviate disutility which drives invention, not market incentives. Most discoveries have been made NOT in the pursuit of profits, but rather the pursuit of discovery itself - it means alot to 'be the first', to 'prove that it can be done', to be a part of human history, to leave a legacy...

Everything we do, every labor we have, was discovered by someone previous to us - 'we walk upon the shoulders of giants', our history, our ancestors and all of their discoveries and ideas - these things, as the knowledge filters through humanity, become a part of each of us and are not the property of anyone in particular. Knowledge itself resides in the mind of a person and thus not subject to being 'property' of another, it is in the dissemination (training, teaching, showing) of the knowledge which is 'property'. So, if I create a new design for an engine, I can: (1) keep it to myself and derive whatever direct benefits it might have, (2) produce the engine, or sell the knowledge to someone who thinks that it would be profitable, (3) let the knowledge go into the public realm for free and gather whatever social kudos for generosity might be given.

here are some relevant links:

Without IP who will invent? How about everybody

several IP-related articles

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Everyone is too absolute on this issue, IMO. I don't think it can be denied that IP rights provide some benefit, but neither can it be denied that they cause some harm. IP rights are abitrary by nature, and thus a balance should be sought, IMO.

I agree. And that 'balance' should be zero. No IP laws.
Why is that? If I invent something, should I have no protection when it comes to benfitting from my invention? Why be an Edison, when your inventions will not benefit you?

you are free to benefit as you please: you can benefit from its direct use, or by being the first to bring it to market, or, if it valuable enough and is of a particular nature then other opportunities might arise where you could, through use of voluntary, agreed upon contracts, allow others to lease or use your product with the express understanding that they are not to reproduce or otherwise engage in trade regarding the product or a derivative thereof (a private version of IP). Granted, only some products are suited for such clauses and contracts.
Yeah, no kidding. Say, virtually every product imaginable, including the light-bulb or the phonograph.

Quote: Why be an Edison?
Seriously?

Quote: Because it IS beneficial but mostly its human curiosity and desire to alleviate disutility which drives invention, not market incentives. Most discoveries have been made NOT in the pursuit of profits, but rather the pursuit of discovery itself - it means alot to 'be the first', to 'prove that it can be done', to be a part of human history, to leave a legacy...
That's all well and good, assuming you're a millionaire. I don't have that privilege.

Quote: Everything we do, every labor we have, was discovered by someone previous to us - 'we walk upon the shoulders of giants', our history, our ancestors and all of their discoveries and ideas - these things, as the knowledge filters through humanity, become a part of each of us and are not the property of anyone in particular. Knowledge itself resides in the mind of a person and thus not subject to being 'property' of another, it is in the dissemination (training, teaching, showing) of the knowledge which is 'property'. So, if I create a new design for an engine, I can: (1) keep it to myself and derive whatever direct benefits it might have, (2) produce the engine, or sell the knowledge to someone who thinks that it would be profitable, (3) let the knowledge go into the public realm for free and gather whatever social kudos for generosity might be given.

here are some relevant links:

Without IP who will invent? How about everybody

several IP-related articles
Well, I agree in large part, but I believe there is a definite advantage in allowing individuals to profit from their ideas for limited periods of time. Obviously, I'm not the only one, as the existence of patent law in virtually all of the civilized world proves.

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Quote: Because it IS beneficial but mostly its human curiosity and desire to alleviate disutility which drives invention, not market incentives. Most discoveries have been made NOT in the pursuit of profits, but rather the pursuit of discovery itself - it means alot to 'be the first', to 'prove that it can be done', to be a part of human history, to leave a legacy...
That's all well and good, assuming you're a millionaire. I don't have that privilege.
thats the point - it IS a privilege, NOT a right

Quote: Well, I agree in large part, but I believe there is a definite advantage in allowing individuals to profit from their ideas for limited periods of time.
for myself, I haven't really researched the entire IP issue enough to make a very thorough or informed view yet - my knee-jerk reaction in this matter is one of philosophical bandwagoning, I admit. I definitely see what you mean about an incentive to invent by increasing the profit motive, but something in general about IP makes me cringe - the fact that it almost requires a governmental body to enforce, possibly... that it is laying claim to the use of ideas, of thought itself, possibly... I just haven't thought it through enough yet..

Quote: Obviously, I'm not the only one, as the existence of patent law in virtually all of the civilized world proves.
the existence (or non-existence) of any law does not prove anything except that some folks do think it is beneficial... to THEM!

[Harbinger]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.

How can this occur, in your opinion? Save, of course, for a population of gimps?

How about when the world starts running out of oil?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries consume natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, that is overconsumption.

I'd agree, except I point out that this has never occurred in the history of industry; nor will it occur within our lifetimes.

And how old is modern industry? Barely over a hundred years. I sure wouldn't give it another hundred years. We may not be around when the crap hits the fan but, so much for our legacy.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries expand and grow not to meet demand but to increase demand, that is overproduction.

When has this ever happened? We hear constantly of "overproduction," but is it because of lack of demand? No. It is because those who demand haven't the means to acquire such wealth.

Huh? I don't know what other people mean but, a good example of what I'm talking about would be "economies of scale". Through expansion, producers can increase their rate of production while reducing there costs of production. This not only increases profit margins, it enables them to increase market-share. Thus, businesses expand not to meet demand but to increase demand for their own products. When does this not happen?

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The world runs on oil. There is only so much oil in the ground. Some people say there's a lot but, nobody really knows. One thing is for sure, the faster we use it, the sooner we loose it.

This is true, but you miss that it does so largely out of simple convenience; it is more economical at this point to use oil than alternatives.

Oh no! We aren't just using oil out of convenience. We're using it because there is no economic alternative to oil. Oil refineries are self sustaining but, the process of refining gasoline and diesel fuels from even tar or coal is not efficient enough to sustain itself let alone a global economy.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Despite this, our economy is designed so that great profits can be made from overproduction.

Nonsense. The suffix "over" implies a negative.

That's because it is negative. Have you tasted the 'fresh' produce in grocery stores lately. It's something I would only recommend as a prank on someone you don't like.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Naturally, this means producers are overconsuming the environment- raping the damn planet!

So the Malthus' want you to believe. But, then, the Malthus' thought our planet could never sustain 6 billion people.

It can't sustain 6 billion people. It just has six billion people at the moment because oil fed industries have made it possible. Millions of people are starving and dying from disease every day in far away places we never think about. Once the oil runs out (or even runs low), billions of people will be starving and dying everywhere.

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
All the wonderful bountiful production makes room for more people so, we increase immigration and procreation.

Sure. Awesome.

Party for the moment, man!

Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that we're running full steam straight of a cliff. Once the older oil wells around the world start sucking air, oil prices are going to jump hard. Many, if not all, countries will be devastated by this. Their economies will no longer be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ their people thus, they will end up suffering from conditions of overpopulation. Economic and political tensions will lead to crime and war and a lot of people will end up dying by force and famine.
Nah, we'll simply move to alternate energy sources. Man is an animal unlike any other, our adaptability is what defines us. I have little doubt that we'll adapt to use other energy sources; many already exist, but are simply not economical with the relatively-cheap oil still accessible. Malthusian doctrine is the domain of the haters of mankind, and it's sad to see it exercised these days, despite its obviously-fallacious nature. 10 minutes thought should easily demonstrate why such notions are without merit.
You're missing the point. I agree, we can and will adapt. But only after a lot of bloody chaos. Imagine you can't get to work cause you can't buy gas. Public transportation has been canceled in order to conserve fuel for police cars. Eventually, they'll run out too. Then, no more cops. Then the power goes out because the energy companies can't fuel their engines or lubricate their parts anymore. No lights, no air conditioning, no refrigeration, no TV, no radio, no internet, no telephones, no hot water. Now you've got hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other. Can you just imagine what would happen in every city of this country under those conditions?

[LeopardPM]

Harbinger wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote:
When an economy can not afford to feed, cloth, educate and employ all of it's people, that is a condition of overpopulation.

How can this occur, in your opinion? Save, of course, for a population of gimps?
How about when the world starts running out of oil?
well, the start of this fallacy is at the point when 'an economy' is described as something separate from the people within it - 'an economy' doesn't feed, cloth, educate, employ... it is the people that make up the economy which do this. So, to re-phrase the question more correctly, "What happens when people are not productive enough to provide those things?" to which the answer is: they starve. Of course, this has been, and continues to be, the case throughout history - some people are so unproductive that they starve, but most people figure out a way to produce enough to survive. The more increases in productivity which occur mean that it is easier for more people to survive.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries consume natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, that is overconsumption.

I'd agree, except I point out that this has never occurred in the history of industry; nor will it occur within our lifetimes.

And how old is modern industry? Barely over a hundred years. I sure wouldn't give it another hundred years. We may not be around when the crap hits the fan but, so much for our legacy.
we know that infinite resources exist in the universe, the only thing that is required for us to reach them is a willingness to pay the cost - as the cost for current, easily attainable, resources rise, then this makes the gradual push outward more acceptable. Its not like the gas pumps all run out tomorrow, it occurs over a gradual period of time.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
When industries expand and grow not to meet demand but to increase demand, that is overproduction.

When has this ever happened? We hear constantly of "overproduction," but is it because of lack of demand? No. It is because those who demand haven't the means to acquire such wealth.

Huh? I don't know what other people mean but, a good example of what I'm talking about would be "economies of scale". Through expansion, producers can increase their rate of production while reducing there costs of production. This not only increases profit margins, it enables them to increase market-share. Thus, businesses expand not to meet demand but to increase demand for their own products. When does this not happen?
there is ALWAYS 'infinite demand' - not some point on a graph when supply and demand meet to clear the market. Businesses do not increase demand for their products, they are able to reduce costs to provide supply to a greater market is all. No matter what, ALL products are dependent upon resources and so will be restrained in production by the costs of attaining these resources: if there is a limit or shortage of a particular resource, and the market is unwilling to pay the price to attain a certain quantity, then those resources will not be consumed in production.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
The world runs on oil. There is only so much oil in the ground. Some people say there's a lot but, nobody really knows. One thing is for sure, the faster we use it, the sooner we loose it.

This is true, but you miss that it does so largely out of simple convenience; it is more economical at this point to use oil than alternatives.

Oh no! We aren't just using oil out of convenience. We're using it because there is no economic alternative to oil. Oil refineries are self sustaining but, the process of refining gasoline and diesel fuels from even tar or coal is not efficient enough to sustain itself let alone a global economy.
there are alternatives to oil - for energy, for products (plastics), for lubricants. Eventually there will come a point when it becomes economical to make the switch - it is a gradual process and the market will guide us all through pricing as to the 'correct' time to switch.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Despite this, our economy is designed so that great profits can be made from overproduction.

Nonsense. The suffix "over" implies a negative.

That's because it is negative. Have you tasted the 'fresh' produce in grocery stores lately. It's something I would only recommend as a prank on someone you don't like. I agree that the quality might have declined with price, but that is the choice of millions of people participating in the market - there are also 'organic' alternatives and other, non-mass produced or genetically produced 'produce' available for a greater cost to cater to those that care - are you just complaining about the greater cost to make these better tasting vegetables, or what? I am confused.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Harbinger wrote:
Naturally, this means producers are overconsuming the environment- raping the damn planet!

So the Malthus' want you to believe. But, then, the Malthus' thought our planet could never sustain 6 billion people.

It can't sustain 6 billion people. It just has six billion people at the moment because oil fed industries have made it possible. Millions of people are starving and dying from disease every day in far away places we never think about. Once the oil runs out (or even runs low), billions of people will be starving and dying everywhere.
people are dying everyday due to many other reasons NOT related to oil - people will ALWAYS be dying, people will always be poor (since it is a relative and arbitrary definition), and there will not be some sudden cataclysmic<sp?> mass starvation that occurs simply because there will not be a sudden loss of oil - it will be forecasted, it will be gradual, and people will have the time necessary to adapt and change... come on, chicken little, the sky really isn't falling

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
All the wonderful bountiful production makes room for more people so, we increase immigration and procreation.

Sure. Awesome.

Party for the moment, man!
more aptly, take advantage of whatever resources we have at the moment and continue to increase our access to more.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Nah, we'll simply move to alternate energy sources. Man is an animal unlike any other, our adaptability is what defines us. I have little doubt that we'll adapt to use other energy sources; many already exist, but are simply not economical with the relatively-cheap oil still accessible. Malthusian doctrine is the domain of the haters of mankind, and it's sad to see it exercised these days, despite its obviously-fallacious nature. 10 minutes thought should easily demonstrate why such notions are without merit.
You're missing the point. I agree, we can and will adapt. But only after a lot of bloody chaos. Imagine you can't get to work cause you can't buy gas. Public transportation has been canceled in order to conserve fuel for police cars. Eventually, they'll run out too. Then, no more cops. Then the power goes out because the energy companies can't fuel their engines or lubricate their parts anymore. No lights, no air conditioning, no refrigeration, no TV, no radio, no internet, no telephones, no hot water. Now you've got hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other. Can you just imagine what would happen in every city of this country under those conditions?
Imagine that gas climbs to $4, and so more people decide to live closer to work, then $5 and zoning laws are changed so that people begin living in the same buildings (on other levels) as their work then... gee, people don't 'need' to drive so far anymore.... imagine that electricity is provided by a variety of other means, including solar, wind, and especially nuclear... which means telephones (or other communication devices) will still be around, etc....

If a meteor all the sudden slammed into the earth and evaporated all the oil at once, sure, I would agree with you, but it isn't a sudden event, it is predictable and thus we (through the market) can adapt and accommodate it.

"hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other" - this is your real problem - how you think of humans in general.... take another look, I am quite proud of being human and think we are one of the most successful species to come about on this planet to date... we can deal with running out of oil, no problem

[Harbinger]

LeopardPM wrote:
we know that infinite resources exist in the universe,...

Now that is what I'd call a fallacy! This simply isn't true.

LeopardPM wrote:
...the only thing that is required for us to reach them is a willingness to pay the cost - as the cost for current, easily attainable, resources rise, then this makes the gradual push outward more acceptable. Its not like the gas pumps all run out tomorrow, it occurs over a gradual period of time.
Even if production gradually bottoms out, exporters are going to react by suddenly jacking up prices. Gas pumps may not run out but, it won't matter when prices exceed $10, $15, $20 a gallon.

LeopardPM wrote:
...there is ALWAYS 'infinite demand' - not some point on a graph when supply and demand meet to clear the market.

Wow! What an unbelievably obvious fallacy!

LeopardPM wrote:
Businesses do not increase demand for their products, they are able to reduce costs to provide supply to a greater market is all.

To increase market share is by definition increasing demand.

LeopardPM wrote:
No matter what, ALL products are dependent upon resources and so will be restrained in production by the costs of attaining these resources: if there is a limit or shortage of a particular resource, and the market is unwilling to pay the price to attain a certain quantity, then those resources will not be consumed in production.

Without oil, there can't be any industrial production.

LeopardPM wrote:
there are alternatives to oil - for energy, for products (plastics), for lubricants. Eventually there will come a point when it becomes economical to make the switch - it is a gradual process and the market will guide us all through pricing as to the 'correct' time to switch.

There are alternatives to oil but NONE of them can perform anywhere near as effectively or be mass produced anywhere near as cheaply.

LeopardPM wrote:
People are dying everyday due to many reasons NOT related to oil. People will ALWAYS be dying, people will always be poor (since it is a relative and arbitrary definition),...

Okay. So what?

LeopardPM wrote:
...and there won't be some sudden cataclysmic<sp?> mass starvation because there won't be a sudden loss of oil. It will be forecasted, it will be gradual, and people will have the time necessary to adapt and change... come on, chicken little, the sky really isn't falling.

Nobody knows how much oil is in the ground, not even the geologists working for OPEC. You have no basis for assuming that oil production is going to gradually taper off. On the other hand, I never suggested it would run out over night either. My only point is that we can't afford to be as carefree about it as we are.

LeopardPM wrote:
More aptly, take advantage of whatever resources we have at the moment and continue to increase our access to more.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

LeopardPM wrote:
Imagine that gas climbs to $4, and so more people decide to live closer to work,...

Ok. As suburbanites increasingly migrate into urban communities, home prices would rise but, the rent on apartments that young families have a hard enough time paying for as it is would increase as well. I doubt if any of them will be able to afford to move into any of those empty suburban homes even at half price.

LeopardPM wrote:
...then $5 and zoning laws are changed so that people begin living in the same buildings (on other levels) as their work. Then, gee, people don't 'need' to drive so far anymore. Imagine that.

Unfortunately, a lot of businesses are going to feel the pinch too. They're going to have to close and put a lot of people out of work. At this point, they're going to have to change the zoning laws so that all these people who can't find work, or are getting evicted from their apartments because they can no longer afford the rent, can camp in their cars and on public property like parks and sidewalks.

LeopardPM wrote:
electricity is provided by a variety of other means, including solar, wind, and especially nuclear which means telephones (or other communication devices) will still be around, etc....

A nationwide power grid of photocells would be cool. They have no moving parts, so no lube is needed. The problem is that the good ones are so expensive to make that most people cannot afford to buy them in quantities sufficient to power an everage home. Everything else- wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear- all require machines with moving parts. Most of their parts don't get very hot and can conceivably be lubricated with some non-petroleum alternatives but, I'm not aware of any non-petroleum lubricants that can handle high temperatures (>250 F) and high forces for very long.

LeopardPM wrote:
"hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other" This is your real problem; how you think of humans in general. Take another look, I am quite proud of being human and I think we are one of the most successful species to come about on this planet to date. We can deal with running out of oil, no problem.

I'm just being honest. I recognize that people are capable of great acts of kindness and generosity when they are secure and prosperous. But, I also recognize that people are equally capable of great act of cruelty and selfishness when they are insecure and impoverished.

[LeopardPM]

Harbinger wrote: LeopardPM wrote:
we know that infinite resources exist in the universe,...

Now that is what I'd call a fallacy! This simply isn't true.
um... compared to the resources available on earth? you bet there is 'near' infinite

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
...the only thing that is required for us to reach them is a willingness to pay the cost - as the cost for current, easily attainable, resources rise, then this makes the gradual push outward more acceptable. Its not like the gas pumps all run out tomorrow, it occurs over a gradual period of time.
Even if production gradually bottoms out, exporters are going to react by suddenly jacking up prices. Gas pumps may not run out but, it won't matter when prices exceed $10, $15, $20 a gallon.
why? why haven't they already? There have been 'the oil is going to run out soon' crisis predictions for 100 years, and not yet have exporters or producers 'jacked' up prices suddenly to the degree you suggest.

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
...there is ALWAYS 'infinite demand' - not some point on a graph when supply and demand meet to clear the market.

Wow! What an unbelievably obvious fallacy!
how so? I mean 'infinite demand' as in, if cars were free, how many would be demanded? houses? we, as humans, have basically infinite demand if not restricted by supply/cost. Perhaps we won't demand 1 zillion gumballs, but there will be a whole lotta stuff (sex?!, sleep, play time, etc...) that we sure would like ALOT more of....

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
Businesses do not increase demand for their products, they are able to reduce costs to provide supply to a greater market is all.

To increase market share is by definition increasing demand.
I think I stated my point wrong here.

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
No matter what, ALL products are dependent upon resources and so will be restrained in production by the costs of attaining these resources: if there is a limit or shortage of a particular resource, and the market is unwilling to pay the price to attain a certain quantity, then those resources will not be consumed in production.

Without oil, there can't be any industrial production.
well, to be specific, there cannot be 'oil based' industrial production.... do you deny the possibility of other types?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
there are alternatives to oil - for energy, for products (plastics), for lubricants. Eventually there will come a point when it becomes economical to make the switch - it is a gradual process and the market will guide us all through pricing as to the 'correct' time to switch.

There are alternatives to oil but NONE of them can perform anywhere near as effectively or be mass produced anywhere near as cheaply.
so?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
...and there won't be some sudden cataclysmic<sp?> mass starvation because there won't be a sudden loss of oil. It will be forecasted, it will be gradual, and people will have the time necessary to adapt and change... come on, chicken little, the sky really isn't falling.

Nobody knows how much oil is in the ground, not even the geologists working for OPEC. You have no basis for assuming that oil production is going to gradually taper off. On the other hand, I never suggested it would run out over night either.
nobody knows, but the best guestimators will probably be the oil companies themselves as it is in their best interests to keep on top of it. Therefore, as soon as they start thinking oil is running out, or they see a definite 'end', then prices will start reflecting such and these companies will have incentive to start looking for alternatives.

Quote: My only point is that we can't afford to be as carefree about it as we are.
why not? and how do you determine 'how carefree' we are to be? Should we be extracting oil at half the rate? why?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
More aptly, take advantage of whatever resources we have at the moment and continue to increase our access to more.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
sure thing! why not? since you are saying we do not know exactly how long it will last then why not?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
Imagine that gas climbs to $4, and so more people decide to live closer to work,...

Ok. As suburbanites increasingly migrate into urban communities, home prices would rise but, the rent on apartments that young families have a hard enough time paying for as it is would increase as well. I doubt if any of them will be able to afford to move into any of those empty suburban homes even at half price.
so then single family home building will decrease and apartment building will increase and prices will drop again... so what?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
...then $5 and zoning laws are changed so that people begin living in the same buildings (on other levels) as their work. Then, gee, people don't 'need' to drive so far anymore. Imagine that.

Unfortunately, a lot of businesses are going to feel the pinch too. They're going to have to close and put a lot of people out of work. At this point, they're going to have to change the zoning laws so that all these people who can't find work, or are getting evicted from their apartments because they can no longer afford the rent, can camp in their cars and on public property like parks and sidewalks.
that's pretty extreme and assumes that all other things are stagnate... perhaps businesses will change and adapt to the new paradigm of resource allocation, jobs will exist in fields not yet discovered, and we could find other uses for resources and materials that might be better than the methods using oil right now - or do you think that an 'oil based' industry is the greatest possibly efficient method of doing things?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
electricity is provided by a variety of other means, including solar, wind, and especially nuclear which means telephones (or other communication devices) will still be around, etc....

A nationwide power grid of photocells would be cool. They have no moving parts, so no lube is needed. The problem is that the good ones are so expensive to make that most people cannot afford to buy them in quantities sufficient to power an everage home.
but is it possible that the expense can come down? That as oil based energy costs rose there would be increased incentive to discover cheaper and more efficient methods of producing solar cells, or other energy production methods which might even be more efficient? Haven't we, as humans, continued to become more and more efficient throughout history - why do you suppose that we have reached 'all we can be' at this moment in time?

Quote: Everything else- wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear- all require machines with moving parts. Most of their parts don't get very hot and can conceivably be lubricated with some non-petroleum alternatives but, I'm not aware of any non-petroleum lubricants that can handle high temperatures (>250 F) and high forces for very long.
I am sure that petroleum lubricants are not the best possible in the universe, we just haven't had incentive enough to discover other ones yet

Quote: LeopardPM wrote:
"hundreds of millions of dirty, stinky, selfish SOBs with nothing to do but stare at each other" This is your real problem; how you think of humans in general. Take another look, I am quite proud of being human and I think we are one of the most successful species to come about on this planet to date. We can deal with running out of oil, no problem.

I'm just being honest. I recognize that people are capable of great acts of kindness and generosity when they are secure and prosperous. But, I also recognize that people are equally capable of great act of violence when they are insecure and impoverished.
I agree that people can be both good and bad, but I think that the free market directs selfishness towards a greater general good and is more than able to compensate for our 'dark' side - we are relatively rational beings, even the 'evil' ones

[francois60]

What do you do if only one company or person actually knows how to implement the technology? Force them to reveal it?