Long ago humans pioneered some very powerful innovations, innovations that have allowed us to grow in capability much faster than the rest of nature. As humans grew more capable, we learned to live in more kinds of places, and to use more of the plants and animals in each place. We didn’t always destroy non-human living nature – sometimes we converted it to farms, pets, or parks. But we only left nature alone when we couldn’t figure out how to make use of it, or of what it used. Our expanded use of nature has left less for other species, often leading to their extinction.
This trend has continued in recent times: as we learn more ways to use nature, we use nature more. There has been, however, one notable exception: rising wages over the last few hundred years have made us abandon some old practices. For example, during the depression my grandparents farmed marginal land in Kentucky that is now forest. We still know how to farm the land, and with free immigration it would still be farmed, but as it is labor is too expensive for farming.
This reprieve won’t last. Wages have risen because economic growth rates have outpaced feasible rates of growing well-trained people. But current growth rates simply cannot continue at familiar levels for ten thousand more years. We’ll eventually learn everything worth knowing about how to arrange atoms, and growth in available atoms will be limited by the speed of light. So over this timescale growth rates simply must fall below feasible population growth rates. (I actually expect a new brain emulation tech to allow very fast population growth in a century or two, but this is tangential to my argument here.)
With familiar competitive habits, this growth rate change implies falling wages for intelligent labor, canceling nature’s recent high-wage reprieve. So if we continue to use all the nature our abilities allow, abilities growing much faster than nature’s abilities to resist us, within ten thousand years at most (and more likely a few centuries) we’ll use pretty much all of nature, with only farms, pets and (economically) small parks remaining. If we keep growing competitively, nature is doomed.
Of course we’ll still need some functioning ecosystems to support farming a while longer, until we learn how to make food without farms, or bodies using simpler fuels. Hopefully we’ll assimilate most innovations worth digging out of nature, and deep underground single cell life will probably last the longest. But these may be cold comfort to most nature lovers.
Yes, nature would be saved if we destroy ourselves without destroying nature in the process, but hopefully we’ll avoid this scenario. We might also somehow coordinate to prevent competitive growth. For example, we might empower a world government to protect nature, prevent innovation, or prevent population growth. But I honestly see little prospect of this. We now live in a very competitive world, and even governments mainly just redirect competition, toward controlling those governments.
We like nature, but aren’t really willing to pay the price it would take to save most of it. Nature than cannot survive as farms, pets, or small parks, is doomed.
loading...
rumin8r 
Dan 
Stirling Westrup 
Granite26 
Robert 
fenn 
Robert Koslover 
magicdufflepud 
mikem 
Felix 
mjgeddes 
Thanatos Savehn 
mitchell porter 
haig 
ann 
bellisaurius 
UserGoogol 
spriteless 
Ben 
Eric Johnson 
RH is wrong again?…
Last week I made a post criticizing Robin Hanson’s view of ecology, essentially saying that he was too optimistic about man’s ability to produce optimal outcomes via technological changes. I argued that long term growth requires putting on …
By false symmetry September 17, 2009 at 11:25 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ernie Bornheimer, Matthew Forney, Charles Homans, Mercatus Bloggersand others. Mercatus Bloggers said: Overcoming Bias: Nature is Doomed: Long ago humans pioneered some very powerful innovations, innovations that ha.. http://bit.ly/lO1lG [...]
By Tweets that mention Overcoming Bias : Nature is Doomed -- Topsy.com September 19, 2009 at 1:10 am
[...] Me: [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Limits To Growth September 21, 2009 at 10:31 pm
[...] losing a natural world independent of humanity, and eventually the end of rising living standards: Overcoming Bias : Nature is Doomed Overcoming Bias : Limits To [...]
By Immortality. Would you want it? - Page 2 - Politics.ie September 23, 2009 at 1:23 pm
[...] Our ancestors were designed with pleasure and pain to motivate them in a near subsistence world. Lives of continuus torture, where they’d rather be dead, were rare. Our descendants will be similarly adapted to find joy and meaning in their near subsistence lives. And intense pain may well be eliminated in favor of other ways to induce intense focus. Contact with virtual worlds and with a vast larger society will be far cheaper for them that it was for our ancestors, though contact with a real wild nature will be more expensive. [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Poor Folks Do Smile September 26, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] needed to create wealth and buy what they need to be happy. Robin Hanson outlinesthe evidence for nature’s eventual destruction once humans work out how to get what they currently need from it in other [...]
By Why improve nature when destroying it is so much easier? « Robert Wiblin January 21, 2010 at 1:19 am
[...] tõmbas käima Robin Hanson, kes tuletas meelde, et viimaste aastasadade majanduskasv on osutunud võimalikuks paljuski tänu sellele, et inimkond [...]
By » Majanduskasvu ulmeliselt lõplikest piiridest November 9, 2010 at 5:56 pm