Has any non-living primary resource valued by humans entirely run out?
I got to musing while reading Jared Diamond's latest offering, Collapse, in the context of logging and overexploitation and subsequent collapse, and the Peak Oil stuff that everyone's so excited about atm.
I can't think of a single thing. There's a surfeit of examples of extraction becoming locally uneconomic - e.g. tin mining in Cornwall, cod fishing on the Grand Banks. There is also no shortage of living species that have gone extinct at human hands. The world dodo meat supply is utterly gone, 'frinstance. But for non-living material resources I can't think of a single example.
The best candidate I'd come across was Tanzanite, an obscure gemstone from Tanzania that comes from only one place. Several places claimed that it had entirely run out ... but a tiny bit of searching reveals that the company that produces it has recently claimed to have found twice as much of it underground as it previously thought, so exhaustion looks a long way off on that one.
My economics aren't great, but I'm somewhat suspicious of the argument that a decline in supply will generate an increase in price until the demand balances supply, thus rationing the remaining supply essentially indefinitely. Mainly because this presumes a free-ish market operating, and that is just not the case universally. So it seems likely to me that some things must have been destroyed completely.
Come to think of it, though, this is a tricky thing to happen in a complete sense since it's hard to destroy non-living things. Metals, for instance, are rarely destroyed: they are 'consumed' in the economic sense, but the actual metal doesn't get used up. (Except in still-rare circumstances involving nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.) The metal just becomes uneconomic to extract in to re-usable form at current prices: it's entirely possible that at some future point when the stuff in the ground runs out the price will rise and it'll be worthwhile to extract metals from landfill or whatever.
Even something like lapis lazuli isn't actually destroyed when ground up and used for paint - it just gets spread out thinly on canvas, making it uneconomic to gather together again. If people valued it highly enough to destroy pre-C19th art to get it, it's there for the taking.
But that's quibbling, I think: there is plenty of lapis lazuli still in the ground, and metal ores aren't running out neither. I think I'd accept something where the primary in-the-ground version had effectively been used up. But I can't think of any examples. It's entirely conceivable that it'd happen to oil - hence the Peak Oil fuss - but regardless of your view on whether we've passed the peak of oil production or not, nobody is arguing it has actually run out already.
"I can't think of any examples" is a pretty rubbish piece of evidence that something doesn't happen. Can any of you lot think of any? I could at least move to "a lot of smart people can't think of any examples" which is a shade better.
I got to musing while reading Jared Diamond's latest offering, Collapse, in the context of logging and overexploitation and subsequent collapse, and the Peak Oil stuff that everyone's so excited about atm.
I can't think of a single thing. There's a surfeit of examples of extraction becoming locally uneconomic - e.g. tin mining in Cornwall, cod fishing on the Grand Banks. There is also no shortage of living species that have gone extinct at human hands. The world dodo meat supply is utterly gone, 'frinstance. But for non-living material resources I can't think of a single example.
The best candidate I'd come across was Tanzanite, an obscure gemstone from Tanzania that comes from only one place. Several places claimed that it had entirely run out ... but a tiny bit of searching reveals that the company that produces it has recently claimed to have found twice as much of it underground as it previously thought, so exhaustion looks a long way off on that one.
My economics aren't great, but I'm somewhat suspicious of the argument that a decline in supply will generate an increase in price until the demand balances supply, thus rationing the remaining supply essentially indefinitely. Mainly because this presumes a free-ish market operating, and that is just not the case universally. So it seems likely to me that some things must have been destroyed completely.
Come to think of it, though, this is a tricky thing to happen in a complete sense since it's hard to destroy non-living things. Metals, for instance, are rarely destroyed: they are 'consumed' in the economic sense, but the actual metal doesn't get used up. (Except in still-rare circumstances involving nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.) The metal just becomes uneconomic to extract in to re-usable form at current prices: it's entirely possible that at some future point when the stuff in the ground runs out the price will rise and it'll be worthwhile to extract metals from landfill or whatever.
Even something like lapis lazuli isn't actually destroyed when ground up and used for paint - it just gets spread out thinly on canvas, making it uneconomic to gather together again. If people valued it highly enough to destroy pre-C19th art to get it, it's there for the taking.
But that's quibbling, I think: there is plenty of lapis lazuli still in the ground, and metal ores aren't running out neither. I think I'd accept something where the primary in-the-ground version had effectively been used up. But I can't think of any examples. It's entirely conceivable that it'd happen to oil - hence the Peak Oil fuss - but regardless of your view on whether we've passed the peak of oil production or not, nobody is arguing it has actually run out already.
"I can't think of any examples" is a pretty rubbish piece of evidence that something doesn't happen. Can any of you lot think of any? I could at least move to "a lot of smart people can't think of any examples" which is a shade better.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 05:49 pm (UTC)There are a limited number of elements that can float off into space without humans launching them there, so unless all heavy metals are are hoovered up by space agencies keen to send probes to the farthest outreaches of space, I think most metals will still be obtainable by plucking them from landfills or orbit. Maybe landfill mining will eventually be easier than ore mining.
I suppose a renegade taukamak experimentalist could fuse a bunch of elements together in an evil campaign to rid the planet of lithium, but perhaps he or she would be foiled by a white hat cowboy fissionist.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:02 pm (UTC)Hadn't thought of the float-off-in-to-space business - helium seems like an obvious candidate. There might be plenty in the sun but we're not going to be mining that any time soon. AIUI we get most of our helium mixed up in natural gas supplies, so it's not run out yet ...
I like the idea of renegade tokamak operators, but they'd have to be pretty damn well funded. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 05:51 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wager_between_Julian_Simon_and_Paul_Ehrlich
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:07 pm (UTC)Interesting to follow links on the Simon-Ehrlich thing and read more. Simon wanted to bet that direct measures of human welfare would get better, such as life expectancy. I think he may be starting to lose that particular one, much to my surprise - IIRC global life expectancy is starting to sink, despite it going the other way in the developed world, mainly due to HIV/AIDS.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 07:49 pm (UTC)My understanding is that life expectancy is down in sub-Saharan Africa (AIDS) and the ex-USSR (drink, economic collapse) and up everywhere else.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:16 pm (UTC)See also http://www.longbets.org/
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 05:54 pm (UTC)Is tin mining economic *anywhere* now?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 05:57 pm (UTC)Dunno if it's economic to mine tin, but shedloads of places do it, and there's no shortage of the stuff SFAIK.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:11 pm (UTC)I liked Jared Diamond's book when it was given to me as a present.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:50 pm (UTC)Well worth a read if you liked Guns, Germs and Steel, but I didn't enjoy it as much. I found the grand-narrative framework less useful, and the stuff I learned along the way was a bit less fascinating and a bit less entirely-unknown. Good book though and well worth the paperback price.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 07:43 pm (UTC)None of the Peak Oil lot are saying oil will run out - when it gets expensive enough it'll just be replaced by something else. The argument is whether demand will outstrip production in a sufficiently short time frame as to make the transistion to another source or energy very painful.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-17 07:47 pm (UTC)There's plenty of examples of living stuff being pretty much eliminated - trees on Easter Island and, to a much lesser extent, in the UK for smelting/shipbuilding, fishing collapse etc.
For non-living stuff, how about water? Obviously not in global shortage, but places like the Aral Sea have been treated in what one would have to consider a non-optimal way.
While neither of these are exactly what you are asking for, they are certainly a problem to the rational market hypothesis.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 01:51 pm (UTC)Laurence
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:37 am (UTC)