What Happens After 'Peak Everything'?

[Javaman]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/376201-what-happens-after-peak-everything

Those of us investing in the resource sector are likely to be very familiar with the concept of "peak everything" -- the notion that the world is running out of critical natural resources that can be economically mined. Oil, phosphorous, copper, coal, lithium, neodymium, water, and many others have all been prophesied as being past peak production.

A key caveat to the notion of peak everything is the issue of economics. If new technology can be devised to make these resources cheaper to extract, the whole issue of peak everything could be set to rest.

But at least in the immediate sense, the notion of peak everything is alive and well. Peak oil is already here and is driving oil prices higher. Peak water may be here as well. There are lots of others, too, but even if just those two are true -- oil and water -- the implications are enormous: Higher oil costs could mean higher energy costs all around, and the end of water could easily be interpreted as the end of life. That's a grim picture -- not just for your portfolio, but for everything else too.

More at link...

[jwirr]

1. I read this whole article with interest. When in college (a religious one) our science professor

taught us about the idea of infinite with emphasis on the problems with economic theory when it ignored that most things are not infinite. In the 70s that meant he was talking about oil.

The list here is what really makes it clear that he was right. I saw two problems in the article that really bother me.

When he talks about the need for more regulation to ensure better use of resources and the idea that it would be done for the social good I shudder. He is assuming that good will win out in the end and that corporations will somehow decide to do what is best for the people or the world. I do not see many signs of that in today's world.

Also when he talks about new tech ideas coming to the rescue he limits this to extraction tech and says nothing about safe tech. He also limits resources to natural gas (fracking) and nukes. In doing this he is ignoring the value of the environment to the economy.

I am not familiar with this writer - is he always so centered in on making a dollar regardless of the cost to others?

[Javaman]

2. That's a very good evaluation of the article.

I've never heard of the writer either, I posted it because I believed the article thought provoking.

But you are right, he does make some broad brush assumptions based on an odd fantacy as to whom will be the benefactor of the regulations and the type of tech employed.

It's seems as if we the people are an after thought.