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

David Opderbeck wrote:
> 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.
Thanks -- that was it. The effect I was visualizing probably wouldn't
be so simple when in play between oil & some revolutionary new energy
source, true. But it already is in play with more mundane daily
examples. E.g. I was tempted this evening to travel a dozen or so
miles for the trivial reason of picking up some TV episodes on DVD that
a friend will loan us. If I owned a Toyota Prius (I wish I could
afford one), I probably wouldn't have thought twice about hopping in the
car and making the trip, since it would only be a fraction of a gallon
of gas, after all. But our Honda station wagon (<25 mpg in cold
weather) is a gas-guzzler, relatively speaking. So I discipline myself
to wait until other business carries me in that direction and combine
the errand. (True --it isn't that big a difference for this small
trip, but the psychology still works on me.) So already, I feel more
compelled to make better planning choices since I do so "on oil". Or
anyone can imagine a person porking out on 5 desert snacks since they
are, after all, only 100 Calories apiece, while he would have resisted
the one 500 Calorie snack. Jevon's paradox probably wasn't meant to be
generalized to all this, but I'm suggesting that it could be.

> 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.
Realistically, the choices for energy at our current consumption levels
is only between dirty choices (all). Solar would be (is) clean, but
can't satiate our energy demand in any substantial way. So I don't see
oil and solar in any real competition with each other; they are simply
different markets -- solar being useful to get rid of battery necessity
on small items or prevent power companies from having to run lines to
remote communications switching devices -- solar shines in those niches.
  But when when we fill our tanks with gas & want to power large
vehicles at high speeds, solar won't cut it. So we choose between
gasoline (or maybe ethanol) or for an electric car, coal, or nuclear.
These are all dirty in their own way -- nuclear in a slightly different
way.

But if somebody did come up with the "clean" energy source that could
actually make a huge dent, that would just become our new addiction.
And we would push the limits of that until we reached some new
environmental limitation that once again would pit our addiction against
nature & future posterity. Who among us wouldn't travel the globe and
beyond if we could suddenly do so "cheaply"? I just don't think we
have self-limitation in us as a society. ---we barely have it
individually.

--Merv
p.s. (after all --- I'm even self-conscious of these things, and won't
you know it; tomorrow I'll get impatient and make a special trip to go
borrow those DVDs after bragging here that I wasn't going to. I
shouldn't have brought it up; like you said........
"addiction". does this function as an accountability group?)
>
> On Feb 11, 2008 7:42 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto: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.
Received on Mon Feb 11 22:09:41 2008