Talk:Do natural resources exist?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It would be an awful lot of fuss to make over something that didn't actually exist.[edit source]

Clearly we can take for granted resources exist. Wouldn't it then make more sense to ask which resources are "natural"? There's an argument to be made that everything is "natural", but it doesn't seem an especially useful line of discourse. AP295 (discusscontribs) 14:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The debate assumes there is a contrast to be made between "natural resource" and "resource". Thus, occurrences of iron ore are natural resources while occurrences of humans in the vicinity of offices are human resources. One can argue in the direction that since humans are part of nature (there is human biology), they must therefore be natural resources, but that is--in my view--pretty pointless. The contrast between natural resources and human resources is useful at least in so far as the more human resources one wants to make available and sustain, the more natural resources one must use, very approximately speaking. And thus, whether the concept of natural resources should be called "natural resources" or something slightly different is of no crucial value. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say The debate assumes there is a contrast to be made between "natural resource" and "resource" but for this statement not to be entirely vacuous one must assume natural resources do exist and the debate is over immediately. I know we disagree on the issue of debate topics, but this one seems particularly silly, though hardly the worst. Consider that if natural resources don't exist (i.e. the set of natural resources is the empty set) then statements such as the following are vacuously true: "all of earth's natural resources exist in detroit", "I ate all the natural resources for breakfast this morning", etc. AP295 (discusscontribs) 20:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any action proposals, like specific wording changes, arguments to be added, etc? Or do you think the debate should be deleted? (I wrote a response on your specific points, but then decided it would be better to focus on candidate actions.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 06:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many (probably most) wars are fought either over natural resources or for territory/independence. Independence is always a noble goal. On the other hand, how does one decide a "fair" distribution of natural resources? How would one even achieve such a thing without Orwellian measures or by main force? I feel the only solution is for the earth to have a small enough population such that there's enough to go around, and fit enough to make good use of natural resources and not simply follow a malthusian growth trend. This is possibly the most important problem humanity has. It probably requires some form of eugenics to solve. I do not mean that we must round up all the untermensch and liquidate them, but nor are present trends sustainable. How can this be done ethically? There's an interesting debate question. Self-determination and liberty are the principles I most appreciate, yet humanity has put itself on a trend that appears difficult to correct without imposing upon many people. From my outside point of view it seems western leaders presently have no interest in solving this problem. This is a rather superficial interpretation, yet they're so impossibly decadent and derelict in their duty to the public that I'm very tempted to think they have no intention of addressing it, or only insofar as it concerns their own self-interest. Surely it has occurred to them, surely they understand it. It's possible they have some measures or plans in place. By all appearances though, we continue in the opposite direction. AP295 (discusscontribs) 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The rich world has a guilty conscience", Hitchens once said. The "neoliberal" archetype is exploitation and imposition with a veneer of 'humanism'. "Free market capitalism" is equally bogus, since the "free market" tends toward collusive oligopoly. The archetype of eastern European "communism" seems unappealing. One no longer enjoys liberty in America, it has become a rat utopia over the last few decades. None of these archetypes will solve this problem. None of them can even admit it. Once the system is filled to the brim with liars, imposters and charlatans, they can only keep lying. The only "freedom" to be had is obtained in exchange for other liberties of equal or greater value. I simply don't find those terms acceptable. AP295 (discusscontribs) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]