[standardUser]

"Should any particular resource begin to run short, our creativity will bring into being the knowledge of how to replace that resource from either some other source or by using some other means to accomplish what that resource did."

The track record on this appears to be 100%. Are there any examples of a resource humanity has depleted and not effectively replaced or otherwise made irrelevant?

[gwd]

A good real-life parable is to read what happened on Easter Island [1]. In short, humans found a completely isolated island that could support a population of around 5000. Over a few centuries they damaged the environment (cut down all the trees, overfished the local waters, over-farmed the land, etc) to the point where it could only support a population of about 600; at which point their civilization descended into anarchy and cannibalism until "the market adjusted" the population to be equal to the available food.

Ten years before the collapse of Easter Island, someone could have made the same argument: When we cut down all the trees so we couldn't hunt dolphins any more, we replaced that with clams. When the clams were gone, we began hunting birds. When the soil became so poor that we couldn't grow one crop, we replaced it with another one. Our track record is 100%; there's no reason to believe we can't go on replacing one resource with another forever.

And then one day they couldn't.

Or listen to Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

"Consider a turkey that is fed every day. Every single feeding will firm up the bird's belief that it is the general rule of life to be fed every day by friendly members of the human race 'looking out for its best interests,' as a politician would say. On the afternoon of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, something unexpected will happen to the turkey. It will incur a revision of belief." [2]

So far we've been able to replace wood with coal, coal with oil, and so on; so far there hasn't been anything critical to civilization that we've run out of. But it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that something like that could happen.

[1] http://employees.oneonta.edu/allenth/Class-Readings-Password...

[2] As quoted in https://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-black-swan-tha...

[lm28469]

> The track record on this appears to be 100%.

Keep in mind that until about 200 years ago we didn't consume anything even close to the scale of what we're doing now.

So far we basically replaced everything with petrol derived products (whale oil, coal, natural fibers, fertiliser, insecticide, &c.) and good luck replacing that, virtually anything you have in direct line of sight contains petroleum products. The fact that we did it in the past at some lower scaler doesn't really tell us anything about the future.

I always found the "fuck it we'll figure it out later (when I'm dead)" argument to be extremely questionable. Burning your bed to stay warm once your sofa is done burning doesn't really sound like a smart plan, but it seems to be the one we're adopting

[volatilecarbon]

The only example I can think of is water. While it's not gone, the quality and cleanliness has decreased over time. There are many areas where you can no longer consume seafood due to high pollution levels. Same with swimming or drinking (boiling used to be sufficient to clean water, but it certainly isn't anymore).

Even "safe" seafood is only recommended to be consumed 2 times a week now due to the build up of heavy metals.

It's also true that we'll always been able to purify water for consumption/use, but there is a cost to that and I don't see that cost decreasing.

[jotm]

Not safe to consume seafood? As long as it's alive, you can eat it.

Maybe it lowers your lifespan. That's not that big of a problem, humans have lived like that for the vast majority of their existence.

As for water, it's everywhere. Obviously, some people can run out of it, but then again a minority is always fucked in this world.

[cableshaft]

> As for water, it's everywhere.

The vast majority of it is seawater, which humans can't drink because of its salt content. There's still enough freshwater in most places, but the regions where drinkable water scarcity is a problem are growing larger every year.

Desalination plants do exist, but it's up to 10x more expensive in most places (in California it's only about 2x more expensive because water is already pretty scarce there) and it's also not great for the environment either:

"The problem is that the desalination of water requires a lot of energy. Salt dissolves very easily in water, forming strong chemical bonds, and those bonds are difficult to break. Energy and the technology to desalinate water are both expensive, and this means that desalinating water can be pretty costly...It can cost from just under $1 to well over $2 to produce one cubic meter (264 gallons) of desalted water from the ocean...But switch the source to a river or an aquifer, and the cost of a cubic meter of water can plummet to 10 to 20 cents, and farmers often pay far less."

"There are environmental costs of desalination, as well. Sea life can get sucked into desalination plants, killing small ocean creatures like baby fish and plankton, upsetting the food chain. Also, there's the problem of what to do with the separated salt, which is left over as a very concentrated brine. Pumping this supersalty water back into the ocean can harm local aquatic life. Reducing these impacts is possible, but it adds to the costs.'"

https://scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-d...

[jotm]

Saltwater, meet sun and remineralization.

And really, $1 is too expensive? How much do you need? I use ~10m3/month during summer for myself and a small garden.

If you use more, well, [thread title]. Smh, talking about resources running out and changing lifestyle.

But yeah, those further inland will have more trouble.

[alach11]

You use far more than that. The vast majority of water you “consume” is in the production of the food you eat, especially meat.

[jotm]

Oh yeah, you're right. I completely forgot.

[hackerfromthefu]

I'm interested in what you're saying, I think, I wish it was clear and unambiguous so I could understand it.

[throwaway6532]

Good luck replacing water.

This perspective also assumes enough creativity and capital available to do this will always there. If you're going to need to develop potentially more complex and expensive technology it's going to need a certain level of complexity and population to support that complexity available. With birth rates being below replacement level it seems population of young people is heading down generation after generation. So... I'm not so convinced this assumption will always hold. In fact, it's a concrete example of a negative feedback loop kicking in and correcting the status quo for us as in order to have a society capable of such a level of innovation it has to be structured such that it's population refuses to reproduce in sufficient numbers.

[Someone]

> a resource humanity has depleted and not effectively replaced or otherwise made irrelevant?

If we were to have depleted something we need without finding a replacement, humans would be extinct by now, or at least on a path towards it.

We’re alive and, on average, extremely safe (life expectancy is higher than ever, despite obesity, opioids, etc)

So, if we assume that we’re better of than ever in history, I don’t think there can be any way the answer to that could be “yes”.

Of course, one can claim that assumption doesn’t hold. for some, having all the modern stuff may not make up for not being able to see dodos, passenger pigeons or huge herds of bison.

Even a resolute “no” answer doesn’t say much, though. Past performance is no guarantee for future results.

[imtringued]

There is an inherent contradiction in the article in that he argues that we can use a resource more efficiently or replace it while simultaneously arguing for ever more wasteful uses of the very same resources. You can only choose one.