The dilemna of human exsistence

[J.K. Gregg]

This world won't be "used up." Resources on this planet are for all practical purposes infinite. The human race has never "used up" any resource. We've always found a new one to replace the old one.

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

For example, if action is taken and the population is significantly reduced then the amount of resources available is for all intents and purposes "infinite" but with billions upon billions of beings existing in a consumption derived technological society with no action taken to regulate or limit their usage the human race will exhaust the world's pool of available resources rapidly.

[exploited]

Well I'm just not sure that is what he was arguing. I think he was arguing that resources, for all intents and purposes, are infinite, because of human development. Which is what the article says: "Our exhaustible ... resources, if measured in terms of their ... contribution to human welfare ... actually increase year to year, perhaps never coming anywhere near exhaustion... The answer lies in the fact that the effective stocks of natural resources are continually expanded by the same technological developments that have fueled the extraordinary growth in living standards since the Industrial Revolution."

I've known J.K. for a long time, and I really don't think he intended to argue that we can just keep on using resources without developing any way of making their use more efficient, thus ensuring they don't come "anywhere near exhausation." At least I hope not.

[The Dharma Bum]

Not being near exhaustion (debatable at best) and being infinite are entirely different proposals. He clearly said they were infinite and did not use any qualifier as you claim.

[exploited]

[J.K. Gregg]