Resources are constrained through the limits of technology.
The concept of "non-renewable" vs "renewable" is a farce.
EVERYTHING, is renewable. We have as much aluminum, for example, today than we did 2,000 years ago and will continue to have until we have sufficiently advanced technology to alter elements economically- such as fusion of a hydrogen proton to say, cobalt, to create nickle.
In addition, much to the chagrin of Paul Ehrlich, the "population bomb" never went off, even after 5 fucking decades. Eight billion humans can comfortably live in Texas. So that's also not an issue*.
What am I getting at with this? During the Last Glacial Maximum CO2 levels were 170ppm. C3 plants (80% of vegetation) carbon starvation occurs at 150ppm. We're unlocking Life.
Resources are constrained through the limits of technology.
The concept of "non-renewable" vs "renewable" is a farce.
EVERYTHING, is renewable. We have as much aluminum, for example, today than we did 2,000 years ago and will continue to have until we have sufficiently advanced technology to alter elements economically- such as fusion of a hydrogen proton to say, cobalt, to create nickle.
In addition, much to the chagrin of Paul Ehrlich, the "population bomb" never went off, even after 5 fucking decades. Eight billion humans can comfortably live in Texas. So that's also not an issue*.
And, even more so, the Homo Sapiens saved Earth:
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html
What am I getting at with this? During the Last Glacial Maximum CO2 levels were 170ppm. C3 plants (80% of vegetation) carbon starvation occurs at 150ppm. We're unlocking Life.
*Welllll, I spoke to quickly on this. And do need to address. There's one problem of a massive population.
Heat.
A trillion humans generate a LOT of heat. As long as that can be adequately addressed, we're good.