3 ms·

That's a valid point. On long enough timescales, even stars will burn out. But the cap I was thinking of was less in terms of capacity and more in terms of lo

That's a valid point. On long enough timescales, even stars will burn out. But the cap I was thinking of was less in terms of capacity and more in terms of longevity. There's an upper limit to how much energy we can generate with solar panels on Earth for example, but we'd be able to sustain that capacity for a long, long period of time. On that kind of timescale, it's far less likely we run out of energy before we can move to a new alternative (perhaps an alternative planet). You're right that no resource is infinite, so maybe the better way to phrase it is resources where we won't run out of them before we are unlikely to need them again.

_heimdall 2y ago
That probably runs into Jevan's Paradox - we may get more efficient but we'll just increase our use to take advantage of the resources we already have. In what you describe I can't help but see us stuck on a treadmill, endlessly chasing the next innovation to replace the current tech before we run out of resources. We won't be arguing about oil the next time around, bit maybe lithium? I can't help but wonder what the point is. We could just use less and accept enough rather than constantly wanting the next big thing. I could have 10% of what I have today and still live a more comfortable life than almost all of human history.