Infinite Desire vs. Finite Resources

*Unedited*

Infinite Desire vs. Finite Resources

Note: In an attempt to minimize the likely confusion regarding usage of terms like desire, demand, resource, etc. At the end of this article the reader will find some working definitions outlining the meanings to which I ascribe these terms.

Part 1:

There is a catchphrase often employed by economists and free market leaning individuals that we live in a world where “desires are infinite, but resources are finite”. The phrase is often used in opposition to those who advocate the reallocation of societal resources via the state. Yet, it is the opinion of this author that due to the sloppiness of wording within the catchphrase, the message is lost in its delivery. I believe the problem lies within the distinction of the singular vs the plural.

When proponents of resource redistribution hear the phrase “desires are infinite” they do not hear the usage of the plural but instead take it to mean “Any single desire is infinite” to which they are right to disagree. No single desire is infinite. In fact, what economists call ‘diminishing returns to marginal utility’ would serve to establish this. Take for example the desire to consume some pizza. As the individual begins to eat the first slice their desire for additional pizza will decline in proportion to the amount of pizza they ate. They will desire the 2nd slice slightly less than the first, the 3rd less than the 2nd and so on until they have satisfied their desire additional pizza. Thus, the proponent of resource redistribution would use this example to claim that desires are not infinite (It’s not as if the person has a desire to consume an infinite amount of pizza).

The problem is that the claim “desires are infinite” should be taken at face value, in the plural. Meaning, an individual is never without desire. In other words, our conscious mind never wavers in our desire for a better state of affairs than our present. This is what is meant by “desires are infinite”. Our pizza eating comrade may consume four slices of pizza before their desire for pizza is satisfied but this satisfaction is fleeting. It is quickly replaced by some other desire--a desire for dessert, a cup of coffee or a nap. Thus, our conscience mind finds itself in a perpetual state of want. That our desires (in plural) are infinite, should be taken to mean that we are never without desire.

There is more to unpack to this. The facts of the universe dictate that an individual must always choose to act upon any desire from a set of other possible desires. We must choose between competing desires based on our own subjective utility scales. The requirement to choose only one desire at any given moment need not imply an individual has only one desire at any given moment. In fact, the desire they choose to act upon at any given moment speaks only to ordinal rank of said desire. It is the best of the alternatives.

From here, the proponent of resource reallocation may argue that there is no logical imperative that connects a desire to a resource. They may make the claim that some desires can be fulfilled without a resource. I am skeptical of this claim, which I will demonstrate below, but it may indeed be possible to fulfil a desire without consuming a resource. It’s also possible that these types of claims are simply unprovable and unfalsifiable. I attempted to produce some possible examples of desire fulfillment independent of resource consumption but instead I produced only writer’s block—not without first burning stored, prior consumed, caloric resources. I acknowledge that this may simply be due to my own limitations in imagination but nevertheless I find myself in a peculiar situation. Do I attempt to ‘steel man’ what I believe to be the best possible example of a desire fulfillment without resource consumption, risking engaging in a strawman fallacy, or do I engage in moment of intellectual arrogance and claim that I could not think of an example of desire fulfillment without resource consumption (As if my inability to produce an example in any way proves none exist). I believe the best course of action is to proceed with a rebuttal to the best possible example I could come up with in hopes that the reader will at least see how I approach the problem.

Claim: The desire to sleep/daydream doesn’t require resource consumption

Some desires can be met through the consumption of a single resource whereas other desires can only be met through a chain of resource consumption. Consumption of any resource is thus the cost incurred to fulfill the desire. For example, the consumption of a scoop of ice-cream is the cost incurred in order to fulfill my immediate desire for the ice-cream. The ice-cream must have either been bought or made from other resources. They differ only in the number of steps required before the desire can be satisfied. There are two types of costs on incurred when consuming a resource, the explicit cost and the implicit cost. The explicit cost is straightforward enough as it is the cost to acquire/replace the resource. The implicit costs however can be a bit tricky since they must account for the element of time required both to acquire and to consume the resource. Both types of costs are important since both costs are nonrefundable.

An example may serve. In nature, a predator must expend energy in order to consume its prey. This energy expenditure can be calculated in terms of calorie consumption. Thus, a predator must evaluate the number of calories they are willing to spend while hunting based on the expectation of the return. Any predator who expends 1000 calories in order to consume 500 is at a net loss. The prey has a different calculation. The prey is willing to expend all available calorie resources to escape the predator given the alternative.

Moving the discussion back to the claim “The desire to sleep/daydream doesn’t require resource consumption” could be rebutted by the fact that both sleeping and daydreaming carry the implicit cost of lost time, that is, the opportunity cost of other lost desires not consumed. However, the skeptical reader may simply disapprove of my use of time as a resource, thus let us place implicit costs on the shelf for now and tackle the question in terms of explicit costs.

Foremost, the desire to sleep/daydream carries with it a variety of expectations that we take as given. These add-on expectations may include

· The desire to sleep/daydream comfortably

· The desire to sleep/daydream uninterrupted

· The desire to sleep/daydream while reasonably safe and secure from the outside world

· The desire to sleep/daydream…I don’t know…with a night light?

The idea is that desires don’t appear to be separate, independent needs but instead appear to be interconnected within some composite network of individual demands. It’s possible that the reader may argue that sleep is a bodily necessity and given enough time absent of sleep the mind will coerce the body into a state of sleep regardless of the presence or absence of the aforementioned add-on expectations (In fact, I can recall falling asleep at a metal concert after a 48-hour binge prepping for final exams). However, I don’t think this negates my argument. Forced sleep from exhaustion is not at all comparable to a desire one may have to daydream, take a nap, or get a good night’s sleep. Forced sleep from exhaustion is more akin to an impulse like a heartbeat or a sneeze. When we speak of a desire to sleep, we speak of a preferred action, a conscious choice, not some instinctual subconscious compulsion.

In Conclusion, I believe that the phrase ““desires are infinite, but resources are finite” is sloppy both in the way it is worded (confuses desires in plural with that of a single desire) as well as in word choice--“Demands” would have served more appropriately than “desires”. Furthermore, I maintain that the fulfillment of desires requires the consumption of resources and that since scarcity is a necessary requirement within the definition of a resource, resources are thus definitionally finite and must be allocated to serve our greater interests.

Part 2:

It may be possible to prove that desire fulfillment may only be obtained through resource consumption by employing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Pyramid of Needs). Physiological needs form the base of Maslow’s Pyramid. These physiological needs include the need for air, water, food, shelter, etc. An individual must first meet these basic needs prior to the attainment of higher needs such as love, or esteem. Since there are various interpretations of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs let me allocate a few words to how I will define and use this model within the above argument.

Hierarchy of Needs:

Figure 1https://simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Tom Hanks & Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:

Assume that for some reason you find yourself stranded on a remote island with no pending hope of escape or rescue. How would you proceed? What actions would you take first? Although you may initially spend some time in sorrow/morning of your current state of affairs or traversing the island in search of a miracle, it wouldn’t be too long before your scattered and hopeless thoughts begin to assemble themselves around a very narrow theme…survival. You are hungry, thirsty, and cold. All of which require a resource to satisfy. Thus, the desire to survive (what Maslow calls Physiological Needs) must be first within any hierarchy of needs. An individual must survive today if they see through their plan for tomorrow. Thus, each proceeding need/desire/goal on Maslow’s Hierarchy is continually constructed upon the successful completion of the more vital and immediate needs/desire/goals associated with survival. Thus, absent the ability to synthesize resourceful energy from sunlight, humans must consume energy via the consumption of other organisms. This precisely the reason the biological disciplines differentiate those organisms that generate their own energy supply (producers) from those organisms who must accumulate energy via consuming other organisms (consumers).

On Consumption:

Can you truly say you consumed a resource if it was merely transformed?

When I use the phrase consumption of a resources, I mean it to describe the transformation that must take place when an acting individual decides to reallocate a resource to some other end. The transformation may be in the form of matter states (melting solid ice into a liquid for drinking), chemical states (digesting previously consumed food), etc. Thus, if the reader insists on reserving the label of consumption for an act that leads only to the complete removal of a resource, then we can proceed by operating under the new heading “in order to fulfill a desire one must first transform a resource”. This should serve to satisfy all who staked their flag of pedanticism within the soil of the 1st law of thermodynamics. In fact, maybe the proponent of this argument would enlighten us as to what real-life context the term ‘consume’ seeks to describe? When, in their minds, would we ever be warranted in using the phrase consume?

Entropy and The Direction of Consumption:

It is true that in many situations the same resource may be used as the means for different desired ends. For example, a pile of sticks in nature may be used to build a shelter. Later, this same pile of sticks being used for shelter may be torn down and reallocated to create some crude tool. Even later, this same pile of sticks may be reallocated into firewood. At each stage the same resource is in service of various desired ends. However, the direction of consumption matters. Although it is true that a pile of sticks currently being used as a stick-hut may be torn down and reallocated into generating warmth via firewood, this process may not be reversed. You cannot first consume a pile of sticks in the form of firewood and then decide to reallocate that resource into the building of a stick-hut. Entropy and the direction of consumption matters.

Alas, although my thesis regarding desire fulfillment and recourse consumption may have been strengthened by the words above, it is still not solidified. At most I have shown only that consumption of resources must proceed desire fulfillment. Meaning, you must have previously consumed a resource in the past be in a position to fulfill a desire in the present. This, however, says nothing to the need of resources in the present to fulfill a desire in the future.

Glossary of Terms

What is A Resource?

A resource is that of any factor of production used as a means for the attainment of a desired end. Economists usually classify resources into one of four categories: land, labor, capital, and enterprise. I maintain that scarcity is a requirement for an item to be considered a resource. In other words, breathing air may be essential for the sustainment of life but since air is not, yet, scarce it should not be considered a resource that must be allocated.

What is A Desire?

I define a desire as a fulfillable want, one that could be actualized by ones own decisions/labor. For example, I may want there to be sunshine tomorrow but since I have no control over the weather, so the want is not fulfillable by my own choices and thus is not a desire. Desires that are outside the scope of our current field of influence would be more correctly titled a wish.

What is Leisure?

Leisure is any time not spent in labor. Leisure is our preferred method of spending our time and is the reason why we labor.

What is Labor?

Labor is the choice to forgo leisure in the present so that we may enjoy greater leisure in the future.

What is Consumption?

Consumption is the allocation (or reallocation) of a resource as a means toward a desired end. Consumption is thus transformative, not exhaustive, in nature.