Will the planet run out of resources?

[GOPBasher]

This is my million-dollar question – what I've been thinking about lately when my wife makes futile attempts at getting my attention. (I have ADD, and sometimes I lose concentration or go off on tangents and... what was I talking about?)

Anyway, the world’s population is close to 6.5 billion people. We in the United States make up slightly less than five percent of that population; but we consume roughly a third of the resources and cause about a quarter of the pollution, including greenhouse gases. The two emerging economic giants in the world are China and India, where about 2.4 billion people live, over a third of the earth’s total population. Now, imagine if they started consuming like we do! And imagine they don’t strengthen their weak environmental laws! (In China, I think the only environmental law is that you can’t dump toxic waste down your neighbor’s throat except on special occasions.)

So, what will start happening within the next thirty years or so? We all know about energy resources, of course: We need to start developing clean, renewable sources of energy, and we need to do it soon, like three decades ago. What about other resources? Will there be enough clean water for everyone? What about farmland and topsoil (and how would these be affected if we started using ethanol)? What about mineral resources? What about all the types of rocks we use for various products? What about our sources for medicine? What about global warming?

Are you confident in the future, or do you think there will be a sharp decline in living standards? What are the planetary limits to our growth, and are we getting close to those limits as the billions in the world get richer? Will there be a sudden drop in total economic activity after years of growth?

There have been many, many cases in the past where environmentalists have predicted doom and gloom, but ended up being way off. (I’d write their names, but I’d butcher the spellings; and I don’t feel like doing research because my baby’s crying and I have to stop writing this post soon.) Despite these repeated mistakes, the situation seems different this time, because there are 3 billion brand new capitalists in the world (China, India, Eastern Europe) and they’re getting rich fast. They might start raping the earth as well as we have been for the past century.

I’d like to hear a lot of opinions here, and describe how you think the world should handle these issues. What should we be doing about it? And don’t worry about going off on tangents. Believe it or not, I do that myself sometimes, like when my psychiatrist tells me I need to develop more confidence in myself and stop worrying about being a dorky dipshit but I continue to describe my objections to Cartesian dualism and

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Ya mean bombs?? Nope. Resources that sustain life? Perhaps. nt.

[kenny blankenship]

2. We're beginning to resemble a family in a war zone

you know-- burning the furniture to keep warm, eating the pets...

[Kerrytravelers]

3. Well, I'm betting we're getting pretty damn close...

... let's see how many of us can survive.

[InvisibleTouch]

4. Short answer: Yes.

More involved answer: the world will run out of the resources required to sustain technological society as we know it. There's no doubt in my mind, and it will happen sooner than most may think. It might be due to the simple running-out of fossil fuel, or it might be due to ecological catastrophe, or any number of factors and combinations of factors, but it will happen - unless humans take a drastic turn in their mindset and develop some true reverence toward the Earth and their fellow life-forms, both human and otherwise. And frankly, I don't see that happening. There are a few voices in the wilderness, sure, but not nearly enough - and the rest won't wake up until it's too late. Harsh but true.

There will still be resources left in the world, of course - but they'll require a whole different lifestyle. Take a good look around, because we're living in a dying era.

That's not altogether a bad thing, mind you. Just that it's going to be hellish chaos for a while, before the world re-stabilizes itself, in whatever form that may take. Life in some form will survive.

[serryjw]

6. Not sure some of us will make it to 2006!

We have to find a way to reduce/eliminate the population growth in 3rd world countries. The are NOT consuming but as this planet and other new industrialized countries grow( China/Russia) they will use so much of the resources and the 3rd world is doomed to a more horrible life/death

[GOPBasher]

7. I agree with you here, but

remember, the third world isn't using any of the resources, despite their huge populations. If they die, it's because we in the industrialized world used all the resources and killed them.

[serryjw]

9. Absolutely true

so the HUMANE thing to do is slow down the population explosion.Damn the Catholic Church for discouraging birth control in these countries.

[GOPBasher]

12. True. n/t

[shance]

5. Yes. As long as we continue with a monetary system that promotes it.

We have to find other ways to live and trade without a monetary system which is essentially destroying every element of our environment.

In addition, it seems to inevitably create immoral, dishonest, materialistic societies which accelerate, contribute to the destruction with no consciousness of what they are doing to other people and all other creatures on the planet.

[El Supremo]

8. There's always Soylent Green.

You could probably drain the bodies of their water too. And burn them for fuel.

[bananas]

10. No - there are plenty of resources.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[GOPBasher]

11. Thanks for the links.

Interesting stuff! :bounce:

[400Years]

13. I read through your first link and the person who wrote it is delusional

[4dsc]

14. It delusional to think we will not run out

ALthough its not correct to state we will ever truely run out of any resource, its true to state there will be catastrophic results of having to use LESS RESOURCES!! And that's exactly what going to happen with oil, the very essence that our world depends upon!! Just about everything we owe our existance too relies upon oil and its going to get scarce! Very scarce in the next 20 years too!!

But we as a society will turn our collective head away from the problem until its too late..

I am looking forward to the day we have to use less oil and see what the results will bring.. Be it bad or good..

[bananas]

15. You must think Sweden is even more delusional

I disagree with McCarthy in several areas, for example he is pro-nuclear and unoconcerned with global warming, but the numbers have been worked by many others with similar results. McCarthy acknowledges that nuclear power isn't needed, but he is pro-nuke anyway. Sweden agrees with me.

Sweden says it aims to completely wean itself off oil within 15 years - without building new nuclear plants.
The country aims to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change damages economies and growing oil scarcity leads to price rises.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x41847

[GOPBasher]

18. What about all of McCarthy's other points?

You focused on energy, but he talks about all environmental issues in general. He does, to me, seem overly optimistic about pretty much everything.

[bananas]

26. He makes a lot of points, any in particular?

He's a conservative, so I disagree with him on a lot of things.
I was trying to answer the original poster - no, we won't run out of resources, if we manage them properly.

[4dsc]

21. comparing appales to oranges

What's really important to understand is that oil depletion and nuclear power are two different enities that should be treated as such. How many times have we seen the discussion about oil depletion and its ramifications lead us somehow down the road to nuclear power.. Its doesn't make sense!

But then again, there is a finite supply of nuclear material just like oil. So if you build more nuclear plants you use more uraniuam and thorium(I hope that's correct). But the world runs on oil. Its the fabric of our society and soon there will be less of it and no amount of nuclear energy will matter.. Thats my point..

[NNadir]

24. What Sweden says and what it does are different things.

They voted to ban nuclear power in 1980, but recently approved the uprate of the Righals plant which represents a direct and obvious contradiction between what Swedes say and what they do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=38327

Sweden will not eliminate oil without nuclear power. It will not eliminate any fossil fuel without nuclear power. No one will. That is a fantasy and increasingly, an extremely dangerous fantasy that threatens every living thing on the planet. The atmosphere will collapse completely unless these facts recognized, and recognized soon. We're now hearing figures like ten or twenty years before the planet becomes completely unlivable. The models, even the most dire models, are breaking down because they were too optimistic.

Sweden already knows this too. Read the first sentence in the link in the thread above.

It is not that energy is now depleted that it is killing us, it is ignorance. We have too much energy and because we are not very smart we are using the wrong form of it, fossil fuel.

Significant energy is measured in exajoules. This should make clear to any thinking person that the following truth should be acted upon with the best deliberate speed:

There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy.

[blindpig]

20. Yes, he is.

The section on biodiversity would be humorous if I was in an extremely black mood. The idea that human can recreate ecosystems as climates change is ridiculous. Hell, we can't even properly recreate natural ponds as part of these dubious plans of "no net loss of wetlands". And we're to recreate whole biomes?

The end section, which implied that if you don't agree that the Earth is man's garden to do with as we see fit or you're a misanthrope is offensive. Humans are part of nature, not the masters. It is that attitude which has gotten us in this mess in the 1st place.

[skids]

16. We'll never know.

As an issue, resources won't be able to hold a candle to environmental destruction. The real question is -- will we destroy our own resources. The answer looks to be yes.

[GOPBasher]

17. That's really the same thing.

If we pollute our fresh water sources, we'll have less fresh water available to us. The more we pollute the and destroy the land, the less farmland and forests we'll have to use. Even biodiversity can be seen as a resource.

In this way, fresh water is seen a resource. As we pollute more and more of it, our supply of it will decrease. The consequences of very scarce clean water are obviously horrible. Imagine paying five dollars for a clean glass of water. Imagine global pandemics caused by drinking from polluted water sources. Same type of argument goes for farmland, forests, etc.

So, "running out of resources" and "environmental destruction" are really the same thing.

[skids]

19. No, not really.

A dog eating all the food in it's dish is one thing. A dog taking a crap in it's dish is another.

Why? Because you can more or less tell how long it's going to take the dog to finish the dish of
food based on how fast it is eating it. However, the dog can decide to take a dump and ruin the whole
dish instantly at any time.

Resource crisis happen over time, and though we've shown that we are stupid and don't do anything
about them even though we know they are going to happen, they are gradual. Destruction happens fast.
As the environment decays, people will die at a much faster rate than hunger has ever acheived.

[GOPBasher]

22. Ok, I see what you're saying.

Let's be more open-ended. I want to talk about all environmental issues. What looks like it might do us in and what should we do about it?

[skids]

23. Take your pick.

There have to be hundreds of ways we are poisoning all higher forms of life on the planet. It isn't just endangered species that are endangered anymore.

Mercury, depeleted uranium, many other metals, radioactivity, pharmeceutical waste, pesticides and herbicides, VOCs in practically everything, GM genes entering the plant population doing who knows what, the list goes on and on.

What form of animal can surmount this? Only one that evolves much more quickly and can adapt to the chemical environment. Nothing like us, or even cockroaches. Something that reproduces in a matter of hours. We're headed back to a pool of microorganisms, unless some species lucks out and grows what's needed to withstand the chemical assault.

Or we stop in time.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Not if we can find a way

To turn stupidity into gas...

Seriously, no we won't - but we are going to run out of the resources we've got used to (ab)using over the last 100 years. Personally I'm happily working out how to survive on the resources that aren't going to run out (i.e, turning sunlight into lamb chops via grass is mainly a question of time, foresight and a little applied knowledge).

Unfortunately, humanity as a whole tends to behave like a drunk 16 year-old in a stolen Porsche: foresight and applied knowledge are non-existent, which is going to present something of a problem when he hit a turning point.

[GOPBasher]

27. Using sunlight for anything would be excellent.

We'll (essentially) never run out of sunlight (Scientists think the sun has another 5 billion years left). And as an energy source, it's also very clean -- no pollution.

Oh and I really like the "turning stupidity into gas" idea. :-)