No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy. Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy. The amount of energy available on just our planet is unfathomably large (e=mc2). The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant. We could run the entire world for millions of years just on nuclear material filtered from sea water. And that is just using current nuclear technology.
We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines.
>No civilization has fallen because they depleted the available energy.
What available energy means is energy "available" for extraction. Not total energy that exists in the earth.
>Some have failed because their use of energy outpaced their ability to extract available energy.
This is just word play. You know what I mean. But we can still play the game if you want.
Basically if the civilization can't extract energy then the energy isn't "available." That's what the word available means.
> The entire planet could run for 100 years on just the toxic waste from a single US nuclear plant.
Uh no. If we replaced all current world power with copies nuclear plants running in the US we'd be out of nuclear resources in a year.
With breeder reactors and ocean water we have about 60,000 years available. A far cry from "millions of years"
If nuclear power becomes this common and available in our lifetimes then yes energy can be in a practical sense unlimited and negligible foot note in the economic equation.
However this power is not yet "available" (keyword) so until then energy is a huge part of the economic equation.
>We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines.
You're talking about potential and things that are currently unavailable. I'm talking about history, the status quo and "available energy."
So we're not at odds here, just talking about different things.
Nuclear power becoming common is a choice though, it's not that we don't know how. Isn't in that sense it's already available if needed, so we've already reached the tipping point where this line of reasoning is no longer relevant?
Nuclear power has a bunch of controversy and politics behind it. It's not clear whether it will be the future. The existence of nuclear power doesn't make the energy variable negligble. Energy is still a huge limited resource in our world because of this.
Why would governments and scientists spend so much money on Fusion if Nuclear was the definitive answer? It doesn't matter. Whatever your stance is on the topic you can't change the fact that there exists huge political opposition against Nuclear power. The political opposition if anything makes the line of reasoning completely relevant.
I've sort of lost track of the point of these different subthreads, you seem to be taking on everyone individually to debate various semantic elements, but how does all this debate about sunburns, nuclear energy, and everything else in all these replies tie back to history being written by the victors? I'm not sure how to make sense or your argument.
We could argue whether fusion is nuclear or not, but I'm wondering where all this is headed.
Yeah it’s ok if you’re confused and don’t have the ability to keep track. I have a firm grasp on the main point in all sub threads. I’ll center the topic for you. Ignore the other threads if it’s confusing you.
The main point for this specific thread is that the economy is zero sum because everything relies on energy and energy is limited. Nuclear energy as it currently exists and what it potentially could or could not be does not change the equation.
The root post is another topic, I was simply responding to someone who said the economy was not zero sum and telling him that, that statement is categorically wrong. Then it spawned an avalanche of replies from people who disagree. What was just a small tangential reply is now a giant sub thread.
Usually HN is much more collaborative but you seem to have taken a combative approach to interacting with everyone, and I'd assume thats why you are finding yourself in a situation where you are arguing with everyone when that isn't what typically happens here.
We are not really energy constrained and simply using the available energy more efficiently can leave all parties better off on all but maybe billion year timelines.