[foxglacier]

The idea that we should use finite natural resources more slowly or not at all to be sustainable doesn't make sense. What are we saving them for? Future people who would also uses them unsustainably? If we're sustainable forever, then future people won't need them. If future people do need them, they won't be sustainable and won't last. So why don't we just use them up as fast as we like?

Perhaps future people will have some important but finite need for them. So we save them for that one big moment when they're used for the really important purpose that will never be important anymore in the future of the human race? Seems unlikely such a use will appear, at least not one more important than what we've already done in building our industrialized society.

[sologoub]

If the finite resources here are fossil fuels then the idea is to never use them again. It was a bad idea to continue using these a long time ago and it will still be a bad idea in the future. Sustainable energy production is not about deferring something, it’s about not poisoning where you live. That does not mean giving up on useful technologies. For example, synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be made in a carbon neutral way, it’s just very expensive today. These would solve for some applications where EVs are not yet practical, etc.

[foxglacier]

Yes but that's a separate issue from conserving non-renewable resources.

[adrianN]

Using finite resources more slowly gives you more time to invent alternatives. Imagine what would've happened if we used up all fossil fuels we had alternatives.

[palmfacehn]

Peak oil is a good example of scarcity theories diverging from our observations. What happened when the known, easily exploitable oil fields were exploited? Additional exploration was incentivized. New techniques were developed for accessing petroleum resources which were previously unknown or unprofitable.

"But scarcity", as an argument should not be deployed where it will hamper further innovation and value creation. Consuming petroleum fuels increases our standard of living and productivity. It is from this comfortable perch of increased productivity that we are able to apply our resources towards finding additional energy sources.

Thus far there have not been "Limits to Growth" along this path of natural market incentives. Yet, it is easy to see how fears of scarcity could hamstring the process. The actions driven by these fears could potentially limit growth and manifest the fears into a reality.

Scarcity arguments typically have powerful political incentives. Central planners are tasked with determining which uses of energy are 'righteous' or acceptable. Some have even suggested that carbon credits be issued as a new form of currency. Move over petro-dollar, there's a new sheriff in town. Permission slips to consume energy, gatekept by our betters, the benevolent central planners.

https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/

[BriggyDwiggs42]

The motivation against freely consuming fossil fuels is climate change. These central planners are usually cynical actors, but they respond to and take advantage of the work of quite intelligent scientists who point out that if we continue to do this much longer, we will likely destabilize global agriculture, especially in less developed areas. This will cause our economy to collapse and global tensions to escalate dramatically alongside the deaths of many millions if not billions of people. Artificially introduced incentives may be a decent way for us to use the market to evolve ways out of this problem, since without those incentives the market appears to be a relatively short-term thinker.

[adrianN]

If there had been a few thousand times less coal on the world but all of it readily accessible the Industrial Revolution had been over before we had time to move on from steam engines. We probably would have used all of it for heating in antiquity.

[palmfacehn]

Petroleum fuel oils eclipsed coal for transportation purposes, due to the ease of operation. Initially, readily accessible surface petroleum was viewed as a nuisance which devalued land. Oil exploration only became profitable because these readily accessible resources were exploited and monetized.

Similarly, tin mining developed during antiquity. As easily accessible surface deposits were exploited, new sources were tapped from Cornwall to Bactria.

Scarcity theorists overlook the human element. Humanity itself is our greatest resource. Increases to our standard of living drive productivity gains. Leisure time offers opportunities for our ingenuity to solve additional problems. When measured by the decentralized markets, these endeavors further increase human productivity. The cycle continues and we all benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_during_a...

[foxglacier]

Kind of like what we did with megafauna, big slow growing trees, forests, and I imagine a lot of dinosaur fossils. But if you're imagining such an impoverished world, what if there had been no fossil fuels at all? Or no humans or no Earth. It starts to get a bit silly going down that track.

[foxglacier]

But where are we at now? Have we already invented the alternatives so it doesn't matter how we use what's left? Or are we waiting for future people to consume those resources to invent some as-yet-not-invented alternatives? How will they even know they're on the path to inventing those alternatives and decide to consume the remaining resources for that goal instead of uselessly saving them forever like a hoarder?

Turns out we didn't use up fossil fuels before we invented at least some alternatives, so lucky us. But that's not because previous generations restricted their economic development to altruistically save some for us, which is what modern save-the-resources people want.