[ExI] Extensive vs. intensive causes of energy demand
kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Tue May 14 04:14:30 UTC 2013
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### Look at it this way:
> If you have population growth, this comes with increased demand for
> absolute necessities (food, shelter, sanitation) which means that
> fluctuations in energy supply may cut into these necessities,
> producing starvation, unrest, war, possibly a vicious cycle of damage
> to energy production, triggering further starvation, etc.
> But a stable or slowly growing population that increases its energy
> demand due to industrialization and increasing affluence does not put
> itself at increased risk of starvation due to fluctuating energy
> supply. If there is a problem with slower than expected energy supply
> growth, well, some luxuries get trimmed off the list, to much gnashing
> of teeth, but nobody starves among this population. This is Maslow's
> hierarchy of needs in action, not a belief in energy-independent
> agriculture and industry.
Rafal, I usually argue with you, but I see a bit of a hole in your logic
here. If a billion enriched Chinese have increasing affluence, that seems
like it could still result in a lot of starving Africans.... How do you
address the geographical differences in these scenarios? I'm not saying you
are wrong, but I'm asking you to think about it. Are there scenarios where
Americans, Europeans and Chinese do belt tightening, while Africans and
South Americans go down the shitter?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat