People say this all the time, but it's simply not true. There is no limit to our resources because they can be recycled endlessly. The atoms don't wear out.
The only input necessary is energy, and we are working hard to make that cheaper and cleaner.
Maybe atoms don't wear out, but neither can resources (that are not merely inter-changeable atoms) be "recycled endlessly".
You cannot "create petrol" after it runs out, for example, unless you spend more energy that you get from it, which defeats the purpose. And there are tons of minerals we use that are of limited supply and non-recycle once used.
Besides any "recycle" cycle creates byproducts that we can't pile up forever.
I mentioned energy already. If you have energy you can literally create petrol from thin air.
> And there are tons of minerals we use that are of limited supply and non-recycle once used.
No there aren't. If you think there are any then post the name of one.
> Besides any "recycle" cycle creates byproducts that we can't pile up forever.
Those byproducts are made of useful atoms, there is no reason we can not process them. It costs energy to do so, so it's not worth it right now, but that doesn't mean it will always be like that.
The Earth will never run out of resources, it can't. All you need is energy, and the universe has a stupendous amount of that, we just need to harness it.
Here's a handy list: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/forecast-when-well-run-out-o...
>The Earth will never run out of resources, it can't. All you need is energy, and the universe has a stupendous amount of that, we just need to harness it.
You started with how we can't ever run out of resources, and then you added the proviso of harnessing universe's "stupendous amount of energy" (plus finding ways to make those resources by recycling -- and in a non-lossy way at that).
In the actual world, where we don't have this unlimited tappable energy at hand at the moment (and with the limitations of energy production methods) we can very much run out of resources.
Whole lot of technological leaps to get from were we currently are to this "we tap into the universe's energy supplies with great success" and "we recycle everything" state.
But in the real world when there is a shortage people find new sources, figure out alternatives, recycle more, and tons of other things. Like I said several times: Humans create resources when they need them.
> You started with how we can't ever run out of resources, and then you added the proviso
I didn't add it, energy was explicit from the start. We don't have to harness energy from other galaxies, our own home planet has tons, and the sun has far more. The "universe" part is just to say we'll never run out even if it goes short on our planet in the distant future, ignore that part if it bothers you, it's not necessary.
> In the actual world, where we don't have this unlimited tappable energy at hand at the moment (and with the limitations of energy production methods) we can very much run out of resources.
No. We can not run out. You keep underestimating people. If we need it, we'll make it. You don't need unlimited energy, just a finite amount.
Look at water in Israel - 20 years ago they had a shortage, now, they have an abundance. Why? Because they needed it, so they figured out how to make driking water.
If we run short of energy, we'll find a new way to make it. All that is required is the the need. There are tons of untapped energy sources, many of them environmentally clean.
Why don't we tap them now? Because we don't need to. That's all.
Maybe the purpose would be to have a portable fuel with high energy density that is backward compatible with an enormous installed base of existing vehicles, fueling stations, etc.
> there are tons of minerals we use that are of limited supply
If asteroid mining becomes a reality, it's not
> non-recycle once used
I'm no chemist, but it seems that if the economic need is great enough, with only energy you'd be able to melt / vaporize just about anything and separate the atoms by mass with centrifuge.
Well, maybe not helium (which has a tendency to fly to the top of the atmosphere). It's kind of a shame we use a non-renewable resource to create balloons as decorations and toys for children, that only last a day or two.
Sure. If energy was cheap enough, you could get gold (and just about everything else) from sea water.
[1]: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
If we use energy in such prodigious amounts we should have no problem getting into space.
> I did specify that at this time the world can not all live like Americans.
No. Even right now we can all live like Americans.
For animals, resources are limited. What is there, is what is there.
It's not like that for human. Humans create resources if they need them. If the whole world wanted to live like Americans we could create the needed resources.
Doing so thoughtlessly creates pollution, but it's not an essential part of the process.
If the recent trend of Chinese and Indians immigrating to the U.S. continues and the decline of birth rate for U.S. Caucasians continues, by 2050 the U.S. population may roughly reflect the world population by ethnicity, i.e. equal numbers of Caucasian, African, Hispanic, Indian, and East Asians. If there's a collapse around 2050 as predicted and the world population needs to suddenly reduce from 9 billion to 500 million, such an immigration-based country with control of the world's oceans and weapons would find it easy to convince its population that citizenship is the best determiner of who survives and who doesn't. There'd probably also be some religious overtones when the U.S. government sells the idea to its people.
Great harm from the population explosion has been done. The environmental damage is enormous. Yes, we can still feed ourselves but this is not the only aspect of population growth fears.