[icambron]

I don’t think this is arguable. A forest of unchopped trees is only ”wealth” in the sense that all the minerals on the Moon are. It’s really potential wealth — it becomes wealth when we extract the resources. That’s why they’re resources and not just stuff. (Whether we have done a good or bad job managing the Earth’s resources is a separate matter)

[thefaux]

I am going by this definition of wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.

> It’s really potential wealth

That's like saying that potential energy doesn't count as energy. If we extract our resources to create "wealth" that prevents us from doing something substantially more valuable in the future, we didn't create wealth. We destroyed it. But collectively we have such a short term mindset that this is hard to see.

[icambron]

By that logic are we unfathomably wealthy because there are billions of planets out there teaming with resources?

Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?

What are the wealthiest countries in the world?

I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.

[thefaux]

> By that logic are we unfathomably wealthy because there are billions of planets out there teaming with resources?

No, because we don't have access to those resources.

> Do you think people 1000 years ago felt wealthy because of their natural resources and would feel that modern times are comparatively impoverished?

I have no idea what people 1000 years ago felt like. I do know what it feels like to live in 2022.

> What are the wealthiest countries in the world?

I don't know.

> I don't think the usage you're proposing matches any real usage of the word.

I am being very literal with the dictionary definition. With every gallon of oil that we burn, we are destroying wealth. We are taking a material resource that has value, extracting that value and preventing it from ever being used again. You can argue that the byproduct of that extraction is more valuable than the oil, but I find that very unlikely given that technology is likely to improve over time. In other words, we should try to conserve as many natural resources as we can today because they will be even more valuable in the future when we can use them more efficiently.

[andsoitis]

> We destroyed it.

I haven't researched it, but isn't a large portion (vast majority) of lumber we use these days to build things from forests that we plant and grow?

[thefaux]

I'm not an expert on the timber industry. I'm sure that there are sustainable lumber practices, but I have no idea what the dominant sources are today. Still, tree farms are not a replacement for the old growth forests that were destroyed throughout the US. It takes hundreds of years for an old growth forest to regenerate, if ever.

[kosievdmerwe]

There's also the example of an iPhone vs piles of the exact same amount of elements making it up.

Which is more valuable? Which would you rather want?

Essentially by just rearranging matter you can create wealth.

[thefaux]

> Which is more valuable? Which would you rather want?

Today or in 50 years? I'm pretty sure an iphone in 50 years will be worthless but the raw materials that made it will probably be even more valuable than they are today.