> we really start feeling the crunch of nonrenewable resources

This really just feels Malthusian. Many of the elements that are currently 'scarce' are not actually scarce, just not found in extremely high concentrations elsewhere. There's essentially a maximum price that these resources will reach (often not much higher than they currently are), before other methods/locations of extraction become viable. To suggest we'll revert to preindustrial squalor is absurd.

> before other methods/locations of extraction become viable.

That was an argument decades ago, but today, a) if we keep extracting more and more, then climate change will be worse and worse (all ready not looking good) and b) it seems like we are around the production peak of oil (of all kinds), while conventional peak oil was around 2008.

So yeah, energy is going down, because we don't have viable alternative to fossil fuels. What is unfortunate is that the end of fossil fuels is coming too slowly, so we still have plenty to mess up the climate. And then we won't have it anymore to face the consequences.

Nick Bostrom has his analogy about technologies being like lottery balls. Most of the time we draw "white" balls and technology has almost no downsides, sometimes we draw a "gray" ball and there are pros and cons. We've never drawn a "black" ball technology out of reality's bag of tricks because we wouldn't be here discussing it if we had, although he suggests things like AI or homebrewed viruses could be a black ball.

Drawing ball after ball has kept humanity progressing. Extend his analogy a little further. What if there are no more white balls to draw? What if we are "impeded" from drawing them by the fact that there are now more gray and black balls to draw instead of white? Or, since we have to reach further into this lottery jar, what if we don't reach them in time?

Malthus rested his conclusion on the assumption that we would never hack agriculture the way we have (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc). You rest your conclusion on the assumption that we will always successfully draw a new trick out of the hat, like find ways to recover all the rare earth metals from phones for which we have no current mechanism for economic recycling. You rest your worldview on the idea that our potential is limitless, that humanity's progress is inevitable, a god-given right if you will. I rest my worldview on the idea that nothing is guaranteed, that complexity begets fragility and diminishing returns, and that entropy will always, always, have the last laugh.

What if each drawn white ball makes the gray balls yet to be drawn a little more white and the black balls a little more gray?

What if the exact opposite.

Sure, but why would more knowledge lead to more danger, rather than less?

I come to think about the adage that scientific answers often bring with them more questions. Those ever expanding questions I sometimes imagine as an exponentially growing circumference of unknowns, surrounding a circle of what’s currently known.

Perhaps those unknowns could be thought of as corresponding to the gray and black balls, so that what’s dangerous is essentially that which we don’t fully understand and therefore cannot fully control.

Finally, I’m thinking that the area covered by all previously gathered knowledge (area because knowledge synergies with itself) will increasingly likely outweigh the danger that we uncover as the circumference of unknowns grows and dangers are discovered along the perimeter.

Why wouldn't it? Knowledge produces technology, technology magnifies capabilities, magnified capabilites create first- and second- order consequences that feed back on each other. Increased complexity demands increased energy to maintain, and increased catastrophe in the event of failure.

The natural world alone has disease, disaster, predators, and threats from space but would exist independent of knowledge. Technology allows us to mitigate those, and as a trade-off we get biological and chemical weapons, mass shootings, the Tsar Bomba, etc.

In the vast majority of these cases, we're currently using up some of our light grey balls, while we've already drawn ten more slightly greyer balls, just sitting ready to be used. We can make batteries without cobalt. We can make energy without (significant) oil. We can grow food in towers efficiently. We'll do all of these if we need to, because they're better than just rolling over and deciding that technology just isn't worth it. Many of the balls waiting are even whiter than the ones we're currently using!

Yes, eventually we will find our hands empty for resource solutions. I do not expect it to be in my lifetime, whether it end by old age or nuclear fire.

There's that hope of yours again. I guess it's quaint. I don't know when you think "eventually" will happen, but I'm 30 and pretty sure I get the dubious privilege of living to see it.

Also solving aging leads to a necessary choice. Mass famine and civilization collapse, or draconian population control. That will get messy fast, and I can see us choosing the former because of people deluding themselves into thinking such a choice need not be made at all.

I would happily give up gasoline, meat, etc. to live significantly longer. I think if everyone had to give it up, we'd see an even bigger push for good alternatives as well.

I don't think that's true or else there'd never be anyone eating red meat or drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes or choosing television over exercise.

Burning gasoline is known to give off pollutants that shorten our lives today but millions of peopole choose driving over health every day.

I think that's a UI problem more than anything. Well, actually, most people in the US "choose" driving because they don't actually have any choice. But even if they do, they choose driving because getting in the car doesn't tell you what it's doing to your lifespan (or anyone else's - imagine if it factored in the likelihood of killing a pedestrian or one's own child in their oversized SUV). Literally nobody is thinking about that every time they get in the car, even very environmentally-minded people.

Netherlands here. Myself and several others I know have never driven for this reason. But I do get your point.

I don't think about those things every time I drive, but I have given it some serious thought. I choose to drive anyway.

Others would trade lifespan for mobility.

Which makes perfect sense, since you are in fact built to move (the brain is the natural boost of the organ for movement - for exploiting freedom).

On the other hand, if the older folks in positions of power cared about what the world would be like in 100 years we might actually start doing something about global warming et al.