I think this argument, with respect, falls into the fallacy of we've got by so far so we always will. Look at the population crunch arguments - saved by the Gr

I think this argument, with respect, falls into the fallacy of we've got by so far so we always will. Look at the population crunch arguments - saved by the Green Revolution right? Well that was just pouring fossil fuels on fields... we've burned through a lot of those and topsoil since. The sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is nothing like 7 billion by most sensible studies I've seen. 95% of the world's food production is dependent on fossil fuel inputs. As we pass peak flow - and we are clearly at peak oil flow rates right now (I feel confident saying as someone who worked in the oil industry and studies this stuff) pressures on those inputs will rise. We used to mine 70% ores we now mine 5% ores of many key metals. We can do this, it's just more energy intensive. But eventually we've used all of the easy to access natural state resources and we are in a very different world. Smarts don't replace atoms. Nor do they replace joules. Most of the alternatives that folks have in the backs of their minds as "don't worry we have X" are net energy return on energy investment negative. Then don't get me started on NPK inputs - cast an eye over Potash or Phosphate stocks recently? Nope most people haven't. But there's a reason the Russians are using their oil wealth to corner the market there. Just because we have overcome serious problems before doesn't mean we always must. After the Great Depression we had vast stores of oil and most of these resources were barely touched. We don't have that get-out-of-jail-free card again. Just more mouths to feed and a world where climate change is increasing conflict and dislocation of populations. Economic growth which gives us confidence in buying our way out of problems (which is a very utopian view given that you cannee change the laws of Physics as a great Scotsman once said) is not a given either. For all the economic theories out there, none have been tested in sustained periods of declining resource availability. Indeed nothing correlates more closely with economic growth than energy resource access - it's almost one to one if you plot them together over the centuries. So it's highly likely there's a causal relationship there that will have negative consequences as we slide down the other side of the energy resource curve.