6 ms·

All known resources are finite.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
All planet-based resources; all non-renewable resources. Some are near-infinite over time, others near-infinite over space. A system-spanning civilization would have many orders of magnitude more resources than our one tiny M-class world.
mason55 12y ago
Yes but as the supply of oil dwindles it will approach a point where it's more expensive to extract than it costs to use a substitute. At that point we'll be "out" of oil but there will still be plenty left in the Earth.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  That's been predicted many times; each time we find cheaper ways.
  - manicdee 12y ago
    Good ol' fracking! Who needs to do expensive things like drill holes and pump in fillers to displace the stuff we're trying to harvest? Let's just smash the lithosphere like a dinner plate on the slate floor and collect all the goodies that pour out! It's not like we actually need that land to grow food on or anything.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Actually we have an embarrassment of land to grow food on. Its fair to examine the wisdom in that tradeoff. At some point it becomes untenable, but right now actually we're doing OK. E.g. Iowa can grow enough food to feed 2 United States.
  - craigyk 12y ago
    No we don't. Even though we keep finding ways (so far) to make new sources affordable, the cost still goes up.
zdw 12y ago
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.” - Albert Einstein
redwood 12y ago
With enough money, I can make oil from sunlight. Sure, the sun is finite too. But the idea here is to speak in terms of human experience, not literal truths
onnoonno 12y ago
Yes. But for example, the amount of nuclear fuel that is extractable is enough to power us for >>1000 years, even if it would be used replace all other forms of energy. Such as using nuclear to make artificial gasoline. I think that would be enough time to figure out fusion. Or put wind and solar everywhere. But we seem to be stuck, paralysed in our fight to solve everything with impossible requirements. Fight AGW, NO nuclear, and keep the standard of living (or even increase it). All at the same time. Personally, I would rather relax the second requirement.

All planet-based resources; all non-renewable resources. Some are near-infinite over time, others near-infinite over space. A system-spanning civilization would have many orders of magnitude more resources than our one tiny M-class world.

mason55 12y ago

Yes but as the supply of oil dwindles it will approach a point where it's more expensive to extract than it costs to use a substitute. At that point we'll be "out" of oil but there will still be plenty left in the Earth.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That's been predicted many times; each time we find cheaper ways.
- manicdee 12y ago
  Good ol' fracking! Who needs to do expensive things like drill holes and pump in fillers to displace the stuff we're trying to harvest? Let's just smash the lithosphere like a dinner plate on the slate floor and collect all the goodies that pour out! It's not like we actually need that land to grow food on or anything.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Actually we have an embarrassment of land to grow food on. Its fair to examine the wisdom in that tradeoff. At some point it becomes untenable, but right now actually we're doing OK. E.g. Iowa can grow enough food to feed 2 United States.
- craigyk 12y ago
  No we don't. Even though we keep finding ways (so far) to make new sources affordable, the cost still goes up.

zdw 12y ago

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.” - Albert Einstein

redwood 12y ago

With enough money, I can make oil from sunlight. Sure, the sun is finite too. But the idea here is to speak in terms of human experience, not literal truths

onnoonno 12y ago

Yes. But for example, the amount of nuclear fuel that is extractable is enough to power us for >>1000 years, even if it would be used replace all other forms of energy. Such as using nuclear to make artificial gasoline. I think that would be enough time to figure out fusion. Or put wind and solar everywhere. But we seem to be stuck, paralysed in our fight to solve everything with impossible requirements. Fight AGW, NO nuclear, and keep the standard of living (or even increase it). All at the same time. Personally, I would rather relax the second requirement.