Re: [asa] Psychology, technology, & the sugar-substitute brouhaha

The Jevons Paradox -- if technological improvements increase the efficiency
of using a resource, the price of the resource will decline, resulting in
increased demand. The extent of this effect depends on the price elasticity
of demand and the extent of existing uptake of the technology. It's
unlikely that technological improvements in the efficiency of oil burning
would affect demand very significantly, for example, because we're already
addicted to oil.

Also, I'm not sure this applies to reducing the carbon footprint by
technological improvements in alternative energy sources, because in that
case you're exchanging demand for one commodity (say, oil) for demand for
another (say, solar power). This might result in an increased overall
demand for energy use, but if it's "clean" energy, it would also reduce the
carbon footprint.

But even there, the relationship between reducing oil use and increasing
solar power use isn't exact -- it depends on the "cross price elasticity" of
demand, which is a ratio that depends on the relative prices and
substitutability of the goods. Some consumers might reduce overall energy
usage rather than switch to solar power, if solar is more expensive and oil
is taxed.

On Feb 11, 2008 7:42 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> Does anyone remember the "law" (I think it has been a topic here before)
> in which an increase in efficiency results in a corresponding increase
> in human usage – thereby undoing the original gain?
>
> The recent brouhaha over sugar-substitute failures with regard to
> obesity illustrate a more general tendency or psychology that needs to
> be taken into account in our relationship to environment and technology.
> (I know -- the experiment was casting doubts on the biochemical
> effectiveness of sugar-substitutes, not the psychology of it -- but I
> maintain that people have also substituted commercial promises for
> self-discipline, and are coming up on the short--fat?-- end of the
> bargain.)
>
> I think this is also the case with humanity's attitude and relationship
> to the earth. E.g. any "gains" we make on lessening our carbon footprint
> will probably be more than offset by consequent living standard
> expansions we set up against those very gains. --And also by exportation
> of the western living standard to wider populations. Our leaders are not
> calling us to sacrifice; and technology, (courtesy of corporate
> marketing culture), certainly will not make any such call. Seems like
> Christians and/or other religious organizations need to be stepping up
> to the plate on this. Maybe science can try to ignore the wayward spirit
> of its own offspring: technology, and call for sacrifice, but when
> scientists have made such calls, it has been largely ineffectual to the
> lay public, has it not?
>
> And if we did begin to sacrifice (use less) as I think we should, how do
> we deal with the economic repercussions? Our "slow down" button in our
> economy is linked to unemployment, recession, yada, yada –exactly what
> our elected and soon-to-be elected officials are promising to help us
> avoid via B.A.U.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Merv
>
> "I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the
> universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." --Calvin (Calvin
> and Hobbes/Bill Watterson)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 11 20:06:09 2008