The vicious circle principle of the development of humankind

[Craig Dilworth]

According to the vicious circle principle (VCP) the evolution of humans generally, and the development of Homo sapiens in particular, differ from what is the case for other species in that we are the only species to develop technology. Paradagmatically this development occurs in a situation of scarcity, and turns that situation into one of surplus. This surplus allows the human population to grow until it runs into the problem of scarcity again. And then, in certain cases, a new form of technology is invented/discovered, and the scarcity is once again transformed into a surplus, with subsequent population growth. And so on. This explains, among other things, why the human population has constantly grown, while the populations of all other species vacillate about a mean.

 

Note that this is not to say that every instance of scarcity is overcome in this way. All that is necessary for the vicious circle to turn is that every now and then a technical/technological solution be found. Given the objective nature of technology, its use can and does then spread to other populations experiencing the same or similar situations of scarcity.

 

Some examples: Between 25 and 12 thousand years ago we Homo sapiens used the relatively newly invented javelin to hunt large mammals. When the number of large mammals began to diminish (many becoming extinct due to our hunting prowess), we invented the bow and arrow, which supplied more meat (at least when it was introduced), overcoming the scarcity problem and allowing the population to grow. When, among other things, the growing population reduced the quantity of available game, we turned to a new technology, horticulture, which overcame the deficit and provided a surplus that allowed a huge increase in our population. And so on to the plough, metal tools, and technologies allowing us to master the energy in coal, oil and natural gas.

 

Unfortunately this story doesn't have a happy ending, for every instance of our technological progress, particularly when we started using non-renewable resources about 6000 years ago, has meant a further diminution it the resources left which might be exploited by new technology. In fact it would definitely appear that at the present point in history we are arriving at, if we haven't just recently passed, the maximum our technology can extract from the environment, and the next situation of scarcity that arises will be global and beyond what technology can ameliorate. The result will be massive human dieoff resulting, in the worst of cases, in the extinction of our species.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, well there's still absurd amounts of resources available in space, which could allow our population to keep expanding. We'd eventually still have to stop population growth on earth, and even with all the space resources we can reach we'd have to slow our growth from exponential to at most cubic (very far in the future). As for the non-renewable resources, they won't be much of a problem if we switch to renewable energy. The material resources might become more expensive, but in the end it will just take extra energy and labor to extract them from poorer ores, and in that way they will still be available for a very long time.

 

One example of something that could solve all of earth's energy needs is space solar power.

 

As for expansion in space, I'm still undecided as to whether it would be better to take a planet or build space habitats to mine asteroids (which would make for much more efficient use of resources).

[Craig Dilworth]

Hm, well there's still absurd amounts of resources available in space, which could allow our population to keep expanding. We'd eventually still have to stop population growth on earth, and even with all the space resources we can reach we'd have to slow our growth from exponential to at most cubic (very far in the future). As for the non-renewable resources, they won't be much of a problem if we switch to renewable energy. The material resources might become more expensive, but in the end it will just take extra energy and labor to extract them from poorer ores, and in that way they will still be available for a very long time.

 

One example of something that could solve all of earth's energy needs is space solar power.

 

As for expansion in space, I'm still undecided as to whether it would be better to take a planet or build space habitats to mine asteroids (which would make for much more efficient use of resources).

 

Mr Skeptic:

 

There are practially infinite resources in space, but we have to acquire them. And this demands more energy than the extraterrestrial resources would provide. So it's a losing game. (Like exploring for and pumping up oil when the total amount of energy required to do so is more than that provided by the oil pumped up.)

 

I see no practical possibility of supporting human life other than on earth. (E.g. just think of the energy required per person to transport people into space.) Experiments done with isolated human habitats on earth (containing eight people or so) confirm this. The people occupying the habitat in question can't survive without terrestrial energy provided from outside.

 

When the energy required for constructing solar panels/cells and transporting them to users is taken into account, more energy is consumed than produced - never mind what would be the case if they had to be transported into space. And the materials that go into making them are all finite, which means that solar power wouldn't be a sustainable alternative in any case.

 

(You might look at Craig Dilworth, Too Smart for Our Own Good.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Quark

[Edtharan]

However, the construction and transport of these space habitats is a one off cost, where as the habitate with solar panels will constitute a continuing source of energy. The real cost balance of the system comes from the cost of maintainance of the system.

 

As we have space habitats that are (for the msot part) self suficient with regards to power, and these are long term habitats that have been used for years and not specifically designed for self suficiency, then we can say that the cost of maintainance is small enough to be feasable. However, there is still some maintainance costs that are hard to offset, such as that of oxygen (because ther ewill always be some leaks).

 

With a long term habitat designed specifically for fullself suficiency, it could be possible to have such structures. These could be designed with large reservoir to store consumables, areas for recycleing and generation of needed resources (like plants for generating oxygen and food and so forth). They could stravel slowly around the solar system and seek out comets (with smaller more mobile systems use to mine them) to top up their resource reservoir.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic:

 

There are practially infinite resources in space, but we have to acquire them. And this demands more energy than the extraterrestrial resources would provide. So it's a losing game. (Like exploring for and pumping up oil when the total amount of energy required to do so is more than that provided by the oil pumped up.)

 

I see no practical possibility of supporting human life other than on earth. (E.g. just think of the energy required per person to transport people into space.) Experiments done with isolated human habitats on earth (containing eight people or so) confirm this. The people occupying the habitat in question can't survive without terrestrial energy provided from outside.

 

When the energy required for constructing solar panels/cells and transporting them to users is taken into account, more energy is consumed than produced - never mind what would be the case if they had to be transported into space. And the materials that go into making them are all finite, which means that solar power wouldn't be a sustainable alternative in any case.

 

(You might look at Craig Dilworth, Too Smart for Our Own Good.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Quark

 

Well, that's wrong on many counts. There is a lot of solar energy available in space (much more than on earth due to inclusion of the high-energy wavelengths filtered out by the ozone layer and absurdly more surface area available). And you should go look up the production of solar panels. Where did you get the idea that it takes more energy to make them than they produce? Finally, material resources are not "used up", they at worst might be converted into a low-quality form where it is more economically feasible to throw it out and refine the materials from ore than to recycle.

 

As for the idea that closed habitats don't work, that's obviously false since there is an example of a closed habitat that works just fine (earth). The trouble with many of these habitats is that they made them way too small and with not enough leeway for error. The larger a habitat is the more feedback loops it can have to stabilize it and the less any fluctuation affects anything.

 

As for the population of space, you're right that sending new people into space is not going to work very well, but I pretty much said as much.

[Craig Dilworth]

Hm, well there's still absurd amounts of resources available in space, which could allow our population to keep expanding. We'd eventually still have to stop population growth on earth, and even with all the space resources we can reach we'd have to slow our growth from exponential to at most cubic (very far in the future). As for the non-renewable resources, they won't be much of a problem if we switch to renewable energy. The material resources might become more expensive, but in the end it will just take extra energy and labor to extract them from poorer ores, and in that way they will still be available for a very long time.

 

One example of something that could solve all of earth's energy needs is space solar power.

 

As for expansion in space, I'm still undecided as to whether it would be better to take a planet or build space habitats to mine asteroids (which would make for much more efficient use of resources).

 

 

Looking back over my reply, I realise I got off on the wrong foot. I've provided a Darwinian theory of the development of our species, suggesting that according to it we're in for extremely bad times. You reply that times needn't be so bad, but without commenting on the theory. Do you accept the theory but deny the conclusion I draw from it? Or do you disagree with the theory? If the latter, I'd like to know why. And, by the way, it seems to me that common sense suggests this expansion in space business is just science fiction.

 

However, the construction and transport of these space habitats is a one off cost, where as the habitate with solar panels will constitute a continuing source of energy. The real cost balance of the system comes from the cost of maintainance of the system.

 

As we have space habitats that are (for the msot part) self suficient with regards to power, and these are long term habitats that have been used for years and not specifically designed for self suficiency, then we can say that the cost of maintainance is small enough to be feasable. However, there is still some maintainance costs that are hard to offset, such as that of oxygen (because ther ewill always be some leaks).

 

With a long term habitat designed specifically for fullself suficiency, it could be possible to have such structures. These could be designed with large reservoir to store consumables, areas for recycleing and generation of needed resources (like plants for generating oxygen and food and so forth). They could stravel slowly around the solar system and seek out comets (with smaller more mobile systems use to mine them) to top up their resource reservoir.

 

 

Please see my reply to Mr Skeptic!

[Mr Skeptic]

I disagree with one of your details. There's far more renewable resources than there are non-renewable, at least in terms of energy. Consider the energy output of a Dysonsphere, for example, compared to the energy in all the coal we have ever used/will use.

[Ophiolite]

I've provided a Darwinian theory of the development of our species, suggesting that according to it we're in for extremely bad times. You reply that times needn't be so bad, but without commenting on the theory. Do you accept the theory but deny the conclusion I draw from it? Or do you disagree with the theory? If the latter, I'd like to know why. And, by the way, it seems to me that common sense suggests this expansion in space business is just science fiction.

You have taken a complex issue, that is not yet fully understood and oversimplified it to the point where your conclusions carry nothing more than the weight of an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

I should like to see citations that demonstrate the validity of your dating of the introduction of the javelin and the bow and arrow.

I should like to see citations that demonstrate the validity of your claim that the develoopment of bow and arrow was a response to the diminishing quantity of large game.

I should especially like to see citations that demonstrate that the human population has constantly grown, since it hasn't. There have been periods where it has remained static, or even declined - the Toba eruption being an extreme example of the latter.

 

Where you are correct is in recognising is that we are now drawing more heavily on our resource account at the bank of life than we are receiving in salary. This is a coonsequence of overpopulation. Projections suggest that this population growth will level off, though probably at a level higher than we would wish. It is probable - and can be engineered to be certain - that population will then decline somewhat. When we combine that fall with improved technologies for food production and energy generation we will be in a position of no longer being overdrawn at the bank. No apocalypse, I'm afraid.

 

Before I attack your umimaginative declaration that space colonisation is pure science fiction, would share with us why you think this is the case? How did you arrive at such a negative, conservative view?

[Edtharan]

Unfortunately this story doesn't have a happy ending, for every instance of our technological progress, particularly when we started using non-renewable resources about 6000 years ago, has meant a further diminution it the resources left which might be exploited by new technology. In fact it would definitely appear that at the present point in history we are arriving at, if we haven't just recently passed, the maximum our technology can extract from the environment, and the next situation of scarcity that arises will be global and beyond what technology can ameliorate. The result will be massive human dieoff resulting, in the worst of cases, in the extinction of our species.

It is in this paragraph that I see the problem. You have concluded that becuase we are using non renewable resource now, and used them to get to where we are, that when they run out, we will not be able to sustain our development. In your words: "it would definitely appear that at the present point in history we are arriving at, if we haven't just recently passed, the maximum our technology can extract from the environment"

 

That statement is wrong. Wind power can extract quite a lot of energy. True, not enough for our current useage, but if it is increased, and suplimneted with other, renewable, sources (solar, hydro, tides/wave, nuclear, etc) then we do have enough energy to maintain and even expand our development.

 

I agree, we are hitting the limits of non-renewables and this is one of the reasons I am strongly in favour for developing renewables (beyond any environmental imact the non-renewables have).

 

Here in Australia, last year, a guy has developed a method for making solar cells by using a type of ink that can be applied like paint. It is cheap, easy to apply and so could be very usful for developing massive amounts of solar power plants (you could poaint your house wityh this stuff to turn the walls and roof of your house into solar collectors). It is still in development so it will still take time to get to a marketable state of development (it is also less efficient, but the low cost more than offsets this).

 

Imagine road side signs coted with this, house roofs and walls, you car, etc, etc. This kind of technology has been in development for many years and this would, when developed fully, be able to achieve our energy needs

 

The paragraph I quoted does not take into account that there are still many more tecnological developments still to be made. We don't have to be reliant on renewables, but we currently are (because not enough funding is being put into gettng these non renewable technolgies out to market.

 

Many people think that our reliance on nonrenewables, and their eventual running out will mean that we end up stuck here on Earth without the ability to get the energy needed to colonise other planets (or at least access the resources available in space). The main rocket fuel that the space shuttle uses is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. These can be manufactured from water using electrolysis. It would mean that space travel is expensive, but if the need and desire was strong enough then we would do it.

 

As for the chemistry that we use, a lot of it is based on organic chemicals found in oil. However, many of these chemicals can also be produced by organisms, with Biodiesel. Many of them can be produced with out methods, and yes these do take quite a bit of energy.

 

I am not saying that we wouldn't experience hard times, but we would not "be global and beyond what technology can ameliorate" or cause "the extinction of our species".

[Craig Dilworth]

It is in this paragraph that I see the problem. You have concluded that becuase we are using non renewable resource now, and used them to get to where we are, that when they run out, we will not be able to sustain our development. In your words: "it would definitely appear that at the present point in history we are arriving at, if we haven't just recently passed, the maximum our technology can extract from the environment"

 

That statement is wrong. Wind power can extract quite a lot of energy. True, not enough for our current useage, but if it is increased, and suplimneted with other, renewable, sources (solar, hydro, tides/wave, nuclear, etc) then we do have enough energy to maintain and even expand our development.

 

I agree, we are hitting the limits of non-renewables and this is one of the reasons I am strongly in favour for developing renewables (beyond any environmental imact the non-renewables have).

 

Here in Australia, last year, a guy has developed a method for making solar cells by using a type of ink that can be applied like paint. It is cheap, easy to apply and so could be very usful for developing massive amounts of solar power plants (you could poaint your house wityh this stuff to turn the walls and roof of your house into solar collectors). It is still in development so it will still take time to get to a marketable state of development (it is also less efficient, but the low cost more than offsets this).

 

Imagine road side signs coted with this, house roofs and walls, you car, etc, etc. This kind of technology has been in development for many years and this would, when developed fully, be able to achieve our energy needs

 

The paragraph I quoted does not take into account that there are still many more tecnological developments still to be made. We don't have to be reliant on renewables, but we currently are (because not enough funding is being put into gettng these non renewable technolgies out to market.

 

Many people think that our reliance on nonrenewables, and their eventual running out will mean that we end up stuck here on Earth without the ability to get the energy needed to colonise other planets (or at least access the resources available in space). The main rocket fuel that the space shuttle uses is liquid hydrogen and oxygen. These can be manufactured from water using electrolysis. It would mean that space travel is expensive, but if the need and desire was strong enough then we would do it.

 

As for the chemistry that we use, a lot of it is based on organic chemicals found in oil. However, many of these chemicals can also be produced by organisms, with Biodiesel. Many of them can be produced with out methods, and yes these do take quite a bit of energy.

 

I am not saying that we wouldn't experience hard times, but we would not "be global and beyond what technology can ameliorate" or cause "the extinction of our species".

 

 

Pleased that you accept the vicious circle principle! But it seems to me you have much to learn. You would definitely benefit from reading my Too Smart for Our Own Good!

[Edtharan]

Pleased that you accept the vicious circle principle! But it seems to me you have much to learn. You would definitely benefit from reading my Too Smart for Our Own Good!

I agree that there is a limit to what technology can provide, but we are no where near that yet.

 

I also agree that we are not acting in our own self interests when it comes to our use of natural resources. Have a read of Tim Flannery's : "The Future Eaters".

 

I agree that if we don't alter our behaviours our current way of life could be destroyed. However I don't agree that it is an enevitable extinction or that we can not re-develop into a technological society.

 

Sure, we could use up easy accessable energy such as fossil fuels and such, but Fossil fuels are by no means the only source of energy that we have.

 

With some basic electromagentic theory and a ready source of wind, a small wind turbine could be developed to power a village (and several of them a small town). Wind turbines have been in use for well over a thousand years, although not to generate electricity. Hydro energy has also been used for a long time too (but again, not always for generating electrical energy). These wind and hydro technologies only requier basic technologies to create (available in pre-industrical societies), such as wood working and baic metalurgy (which has been around since the bronze age).

 

Yes, it might take hundreds, if not thousands of years to redevelop these technologies, but they can be redeveloped.

 

Yes, there is the chance we could destroy ourselves with war (either biological or nuclear), but even then it would still be hard to wipe us out completely.

 

Just because we run out of easy energy does not mean that as a species we will become extinct. We have survived, as a species for hundreds of thousands of years without easy energy other than renewables (such as wood). So we will survive without easy energy too. However, it is our society that is at risk from loosing access to easy energy, and with that I can agree.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pleased that you accept the vicious circle principle! But it seems to me you have much to learn. You would definitely benefit from reading my Too Smart for Our Own Good!

 

If you're the author of Too Smart for Our Own Good, I would not recommend that book to anyone.

[Craig Dilworth]

If you're the author of Too Smart for Our Own Good, I would not recommend that book to anyone.

 

Well, glad to hear you read it in any case!

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, glad to hear you read it in any case!

 

Nope, I just know someone who goes by the same name as the author, which should have been obvious from what I said.

[Ophiolite]

Still waiting for those citations that would support your assertions.

 

Still waiting for justification rejecting the likelihood of extra-planetary colonisation.

[abrahambl]

I strongly object to a variety of aspects of your (if you are indeed Craig Dilworth) "Too Smart for Our Own Good" First, your usage of the term "Third World", which implies a value ranking of peoples and cultures, is highly objectionable. The term "developing world" (or, since you state that you believe this is overly optimistic [p.447]) or at least periphery would be greatly preferred. Secondly (and most importantly) a wide variety of the sources which you rely on heavily to support the history of the VCP are vastly outdated and contradict more recent and accurate sources. Let's look at, as Ophiolite mentions, your dating of the javelin and bow & arrow. The only citation discussing their usage (on p. 215 &216) cite a source from 1977! Honestly, sir, has no work been done on the topic since 1977? Since that time, our understanding of our early human ancestors has changed dramatically. This one example is indicative of a larger problem which pervades your work. Let's look at another example. On page 209, you note,

 

"Here we can expect that, as in the case of modern hunter-gatherers(citation) and ourselves, it was men rather than women who made and used the greater number of more complex tools, weapons, and implements, and who used more complex techniques in making and using them. The more complex the technology, the more the men participate, and the simpler the technology, the more the women"

 

And what was the date of that citation? 1969. And your quoting of Lorenz to set up this discussion in the paragraph before? 1963. Your use of ridiculously outdated sources to support your absurd (and in the case of the latter, perhaps even sexist) arguments offends me as a prospective scholar. Please explain yourself.

 

 

And the edition of this book which I used was the 2010, Cambridge University Press edition. I invite others to examine these criticisms for themselves.