Is the world actually limited in resources?

[sensible27]

Not in the technical sense, obviously the atoms are limited and so is the energy

But more in the short term, can we actually run out of metals? Some chemical reactions are hard to reverse yes, but I assume most of the metal is reusable and recyclable. And we don't have to put as much effort as we were when we were mining it

And energy, for example every hour more solar energy hits the earth than the world uses in an entire year. Assuming we could sort out energy needs possibly we would be able to dig deeper.



I haven't really thought about this much,

Yes

No

[nightdrot]

First, begging your pardon. I meant to vote "yes," and inadvertently hit the "No" button. Apologies for messing up your poll.

Secondly, yes, though in some respects it is less a question of limits than of the distribution of resources. It is the unequal distribution of resources and the uneven technology for the distribution of those resources that make conflict over them an integral part of the human condition.

In terms of the latter, technology has allowed man to exploit the resources he has far beyond what he believed he could attain. Thus the "energy crisis" of the 1970s, when the experts predicted that the human population would outstrip the supplies of oil, natural gas and coal that kept the world powered. In due course, technological developments found better and more efficient ways of exploiting those resources such that by the 1980s there was already talk of an energy glut.

Of course, then came the dire predictions that fossil fuels would cause the planet to overheat and the predictions that much of the planet would be drowned under glacial melt or choking on desert sands. As much as resources are limited, technology has found ways to expand those resources, and the next doomsday prediction is just around the corner.

Yet, for all the "global abundance- and again, as the example above illustrates such abundance is about the Earth's resources, it is also about the limits of human technology at any point in time. It is also about where those resources may be found.

The United States is a continental sized nation with abundant raw materials and farmland in a generally temperate climate. It is also a scientifically dynamic and technologically advanced society that ceaselessly finds ways to more efficiently tap - and sometimes recycle - those resources and that farmland.

Thus then does the world suddenly discover that it had more than it thought it had. That the accessible supplies of oil were greater, when new technologies and human conservation are employed, than it thought it had.

So a paradox. The world's resources are limited. There is only so much oil or food. It is just that there is more than the world thinks it has. Malthus predicted that food supplies would grow arithmetically and human population would grow exponentially. Global famine to follow. Yet he did not account for human ingenuity that would make more of what there was because there was more than was immediately apparent.

Yet context matters. Take the resources of the USA - the world's largest economy - and place them in Russia - which has a larger territory and thus presumably even more resources - and yet only the world's 11th largest economy. Raw materials and farmland absent human ingenuity and a culture that emphasizes economic dynamism amounts to poverty - or at least relative poverty.

Of course, the other paradox is - as the question puts it - there are only so many atoms. A society that assumes abundance is apt to be short of abundance. Resources are limited - if less limited than meets the eye.

Short summary to long question - the answer is a matrix. The answer stands at the crossroads of material, human innovation and the distribution of those resources. So yes, the world's resources are limited, just not in the simplistic "Malthusian" understanding of such limitations.

[sensible27]

I think this frames my intutive thoughts well. It's essentially about a combination of what we can do, and how much resources it allows us to collect. When I was writing the question I was wondering if we could focus on one, energy or resources what should we focus on. And my mind intutively goes to energy, I'm not entirely sure why but I think it's because as a civilization energy is our lifeline. Everything else is just things we've made, if you've enough energy you can grow more food, and as civilization grows more advanced and automated our restriction would be energy. I don't know a lot about mining but assuming it's just digging and creating artificial diamonds for digging, both are fullfilled by energy.

If you've read you probably know so I'll ask you this, what's the reason for linear predictions of say food production. If technology didn't advance would we really run out of food? That seems counterintuitive given that I doubt we even use majority of the land on earth, again not sure though. Fun fact : ingnoring other infrastructure, 10,000 km^2 of solar panels in sahara would cover the power needs of our entire planet. I think one square kilometre od solar panels cost around 1.8 billion. So it might be sort of irrational to build it now, especially taking the wait equations in mind.

[nightdrot]

Well, it may sound funny, but in a way we would run out of food without technology. Think of the harvesting equipment that we have developed to make food more abundant. Think of the different varieties of seed that have been artificially developed. Think of the pesticides, and so on.

Once upon a time, a plague of locusts meant famine. Now, no one remembers what a plague of locusts looks like. We owe that to agricultural technology, which is no less tech for being agricultural.

As to the habit of linear thinking. That is just a natural human reaction. We are able to think of the variables that produce a pattern of statistics. We are unable to predict the variables that will alter that statistical pattern.

We know that such variable can and do exist. However, we have no means of predicting them and therefore no means of factoring them into predictions - other than perhaps to admitting that there is a margin for error in any prediction.

The old saw has it, "Because Rommel got to Tobruk, he will get to Cairo." Of course we know that did not happen because an event - the battle of El Alamein - intervened. As in human affairs, so in natural affairs.

[hahahmm]

Nobody ever said we're going to run out of renewable resources like wind, solar, hydro, thermal electric.

There are places in Germany where they destroyed entire modern towns just so mining companies could strip mine the area for coal. So unfortunately, the resources you want might be under your home. Yes, things run out eventually since we can't access everything underground and population is expanding quickly. There's also politics that determines who can get what... imagine if the resources you want are in another country and that other country doesn't want you to have an easy time competing with them.

[Ms_Vanderquack]

Well yeah, but we aren’t exactly going to run out of solar energy any time in the next few billion years.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, the rich will get richer, while the poor get poorer, I believe Trump was sent to test the American people to see how things could go, Yes we are living on limited resources, Trump was America's first dictator

[LikeALog]

Yes, that's why space exploration is so important. Other planets and moons will be our future source of rare metals.

[clampfan101]

Until we can discover how to recycle 100% of something, it’s limited.
And even then, we need to assume enough of it exists in the first place. There’s no infinite source of anything.

[AviatorTom]

There is a finite source of materials in the earth. When we use them up, there is no more.

[Snakeyes7]

The entire definition of economic is the study of how we can most effectively and efficiently use the scarce resources we have.

[OddBeMe]

Like fresh water? Yeah

[Neosporin]

Wow you’re dumb

[sensible27]

Hi,

The question states a facts, and makes some assumptions while also stating "I haven't really thought about this much," thus it doesn't give you much information to base it on

If you have a solid argument for how it is "dumb" which I'm decently sure you don't, you're free to comment. This feels irrational. Given that this comment doesn't add much value compounded with other irrational behaviours like deleting comments, I'm not sure but blocking?, specifically asking if I'm ignoring you while making irrational comments just indicates an emotional response, that you lost an argument and are now insecure. I have asked much dumber questions to possibly much more specialised people, and this rarely ever if never happens. Try not to be irrational,