[thatnerd]

Regardless of how fast we use up non-renewable resources, they're all going to be gone at some point. Copper, lithium, and tin are going to be gone. Humanity will need to live off of what we can forage or grow.

Also, the rarity of farming in the animal kingdom makes me worried about the sustainability even of multi-species domestication. A few ants cultivate trees or fungi or aphids, but they seem to specialize in just domesticating just one species at a time. This is telling us something important: I suspect domesticating too many species leads to vulnerabilities to so many parasites/bacteria/viruses/pests that pestilence and famine risk will eventually outweigh any benefits of domestication. If they didn't, ants would be farming lots of species!

In the real long term, then, humans will get one (or zero) domesticated species, and maybe some electricity if we can make self-sustaining solar power operations using common elements like aluminum and silicon from dirt, or sodium, chlorine, oxygen, and hydrogen from water, and that'll be it for technology, Everything else will be foraged animals and plants, in an ecosystem that keeps our population in check through predation.

As for the transition, it's going to suck. And I don't trust any governing body to "ramp down" the population smoothly without committing some major atrocities.

[jemmyw]

For the resources you've listed we're nowhere near extracting just the known reserves. For lithium there are a lot of known sources that aren't included in the reserves because they haven't been assessed yet.

And if we did extract the majority of those particular resources then there would be so much of them in circulation that wide scale recycling becomes viable. It already is for copper. And if you're thinking then that recycling is going to be more energy intensive, that's not clear for copper and lithium either - both require high energy to extract in the first place and potentially less to keep them going around.