Not worried about them running out (it sounds like you assumed that). I was more worried about geopolitical factors and having a huge online usage (companies want to make money and keep growing) be a forcing function to keep extracting them in a non-sustainable way.

> Not worried about them running out (it sounds like you assumed that).

Sorry, my mistake. The point your were trying to make is very interesting too.

Even harder and even more expensive to extract if you give a damn about the environment.

One of the arguments for thorium-based nuclear power is that we're already digging up tons of thorium as a byproduct of rare earth mining. This is radioactive material that currently we're just dumping.

This is an unpopular opinion here on HN but essentially everything the largest nations have done show that they don't give a damn about the environment at all.

Like my dad said, "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."

your two sentences led to some cognitive dissonance...

yes, institutions like governments can be amoral/immoral on longer timescales (in fact, i'd posit institutions are employed specifically for this purpose), but people rarely exhibit such attributes statically, as your dad's quote alludes. it's at best "believe them in the moment".

rare is the "bad" person; more common is the "bad" institution. expect the best of people (which is not the same as "be naïve").

It doesn't matter if the people are bad or the institution is bad. The end result is the same:

> everything the largest nations have done show that they don't give a damn about the environment at all.

I do expect the best of people. It's just been shown that the "best" a very large group of people can do re: climate change is pretty fucking pathetic.

Good point! Your comment has made me curious about the total lifecycle of the waste products from these processes.