[gridlockd]

Earth's resources are limited over a given timespan, but most of these resources are not exhaustible, particularly not hydrocarbons.

Given that all human populations that have reached a certain standard of living so far have ceased to grow beyond replacement levels, overpopulation is likely not going to be a long-term concern either.

It is therefore not a problem to overshoot for a while, assuming that we eventually reach a level of technology that lets us maintain our standard of living in a sustainable fashion.

[meshr]

Earth's resources are decreasing over a given timespan because we both spent exhaustible resources and produce wastes for future generations. It can’t be sustainable system.

There is no evidence that overpopulation is not long-term concern. Look at Africa, India, China

New technologies are not guaranteed. You can’t simultaneously give less and less time and resources to your children and ask them to be better than you. They will choose to continue your tactic until civilization collapse as future generations can't vote

[gridlockd]

> Earth's resources are decreasing over a given timespan because we both spent exhaustible resources and produce wastes for future generations.

To my awareness, there is no critical resource that is both exhaustible and non-substitutable. Waste is not a fundamental issue, it can be stockpiled and possibly recycled with future technology. Most of it can also simply be burned with relatively low environmental impact, at least in modern incinerators [1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration#Arguments_for_inc...

> There is no evidence that overpopulation is not long-term concern. Look at Africa, India, China.

Yes, do look at these countries:

Chinese fertility today is well below replacement, despite giving up the disastrous "one child policy".

Indian fertility rates are at 2.2, very near replacement levels.

African fertility rates vary wildly with countries, but here as well you can see that fertility is inversely correlated with standard of living. Moreover, a low standard of living also implies relatively low resource usage.

> New technologies are not guaranteed.

New technology isn't strictly required, it just implies a lower standard of living.

> You can’t simultaneously give less and less time and resources to your children and ask them to be better than you.

Of course you can. The more pressure there is, the more likely it is that new solutions are developed.

Imagine if there wasn't any petrol left, we'd put a lot more effort into renewables. They wouldn't even need subsidies.

> They will choose to continue your tactic until civilization collapse as future generations can't vote

Well, sometimes civilizations do collapse. We may well enter an age of decline again. We also may launch a global thermonuclear war. I'm not saying a rosy future is guaranteed, I'm saying resource exhaustion and overpopulation are not as big a concern as people believe.

[imtringued]

Hydrocarbons didn't form themselves. An energy source is required to remove the oxygen from CO2. If it is possible to tap that energy source directly, then depending on energy from hydrocarbons is incredibly irresponsible because high concentrations of CO2 make the planet less habitable for most life including humans.

[gridlockd]

Hydrocarbons aren't just a form of energy, just burning them is arguably a huge waste. The point is that they're not exhaustible.