Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dave Schuler's avatar

I wanted to add a comment to your story.

For thousands of years obsidian was traded over long distances. It was in many ways to human being prior to 5,000 BCE what oil is to us now.

There was a crisis around 5,000 BCE. Readily available sources of obsidian had become depleted. Obsidian became scarce and, consequently, expensive.

Humanity did not become extinct. Tools made of copper were used as a substitute for those made of obsidian, Then bronze. Then iron. Then steel. We haven't looked back.

The moral of this story is that we should worry less about depleting resources on which we depend and considerably more about discouraging or outright preventing the innovation that encourages substituting depleted resources with those we still have.

Arthur S.'s avatar

I agree with the overall analysis:

(i) We have the power to destroy or make sustainable, it is up to us - except of course for major natural disaster beyond our control (major eruptions can have major global effects).

(ii) We do see signs of the path to sustainable abundance (e.g. decouplings).

But two comments:

1. Real question is timing: How to reach that state BEFORE damages become so catastrophic we have major loss of life, ensuing major political conflicts, all derailing the effort.

2. Real debate is share of two levers in achieving that goal - technology vs. sobriety: 100/0? 90/10? 70/30?

35 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?