Rapidly depleting our planet's natural resources is irresponsible even if we aren't dramatically changing the climate in the process.

please tag "ecology"

Do you believe we are rapidly depleting our natural resources? If so, which resources are you talking about?

Gee, oil, maybe? The coal we strip-mined the Appalachians for? Animal habitats, fresh water... not every resource is a material substance. Some resources are a lack of things, some are potentials.

Would you agree if this was some barren rock in space, say Phobos?

That depends: do we have asteroid mining capability?

I don't know, I think we'll adapt quickly once we're forced to.

and you think getting into a situation where we're "forced to" doesn't qualify as irresponsible?

I'd rather make sure that we don't have a new dark age while we spin up the new tech.

asteroid farming is in alpha testing as we speak ...

@Rorek: Are you suggesting that you're only ok with strip-mining Phobos if we can't mine any asteroids? If so couldn't you make the same argument about strip-mining the Earth?

I don't know, Vynce. What else are we going to do? Hasn't civilization been depleting resources all this time?

If we all decide to stop using them, then we're in the same situation as if they were already gone. If we use them at a slower rate then they'll just run out at a later time. Granted that would give us more time to come up with solutions to the problem, but I don't think we generally take to heart the problems of the people of the future. They can take care of themselves, and they'll be better equipped than we are to deal with these things, anyway.

Most of us are concerned above all with ourselves and those we feel a personal responsibility for, and I don't think that's such a terrible thing.

When the problem's really staring us in the face, that's when we'll do something. We'll adapt, just like we always have.

If we all decide to stop using them, then we're in the same situation as if they were already gone.

Is this "trolling for dollars"?

I don't get it.

Trolling for dollars would like to award Clint a bonus of 100 dollars for the best use of a straw man argument on this thread.

Seriously though, Clint, how do you characterize any use at all as rapid? And if you aren't taking that (tenuous) position, how does the section LD italicized relate to the claim?

When the problem's really staring us in the face, that's when we'll do something.

Then we should have already started.

Any other time you're confused why someone thinks you're a troll, just let us know. We're from the internet. We're here to help.

Okay, Pope, help me. Explain.

Where exactly is the straw man?

Seriously though, Clint, how do you characterize any use at all as rapid?

What I was doing is laying out the other speed options, and pointing out that they all lead to the same end (in many cases, such as with oil). They're going to run out eventually. Use them now, use them later. What's the real difference?

Well, you said, and LD highlighted:

"If we all decide to stop using them, then we're in the same situation as if they were already gone."

But nobody is suggesting that we stop using our natural resources. The claim suggests that a slower rate is more responsible, but not a complete cessation of consumption.

When you say that the opposition is making an argument that they are not (generally a much weaker argument) for the purpose of showing how absurd that argument is, (the one they're not making, that is) you are making a straw man argument.

LD felt that this logical flaw was so obvious that you must have been aware of it(I'm guessing now), and therefore assumed that the only reason you were making that argument was to make people angry(trolling).

I'm trying really hard to be both helpful and civil, how'd I do?

Ah, there's the rub, right. The trick of stretching the amount of time where we have natural resources to consume is to increase the amount of time we have to develop ways of doing the same things without having those resources to consume.

Then we should have already started.

I don't see the big emergency, really. Our best resouce is our own intelligence, and I trust we'll solve the problem. When our accustomed way of life is threatened, we'll put our minds to it and solve it. If we should fail, then we'll just have to do without. If there is no answer, then we'll have to live with the reality, and so be it. Our non-renewable resources will eventually be gone in any case.

We can use them up fast, or slow, or stop using them in order to preserve them. But preserve them for who? Not us, we've decided not to use them. If all outcomes are the same, and using them rapidly is irresponsible, then all actions are irresponsible.

warning: possible MW clone on board

"if all outcomes are the same"

but having to solve the problem in 100 years is *not* the same as having to solve it in 10.

therefore, all outcomes are not the same

therefore, one is better

warning: possible MW clone on board

I thought the same thing. But this one doesn't use "I" or "me" every five words, so I doubt it.

possibly an acolyte ...

Wow, how about everybody pile on?
Forgive me for questioning the prevailing opinion. Examining an idea critically is clearly a bad thing, especially considering the expertise of this crowd.
I myself am not an expert, so perhaps someone would condescend to educate me on the subject?

Take this for example:

I hear that having to solve the problem in 100 years is *not* the same as having to solve it in 10., and thus it follows that the former scenario is better than the latter. Okay, I'll accept this assertion as true, but here's where I get confused.
The statement assumes we'll be forced to in any case, and getting into the position of being forced to is irresponsible, as proven by previous assertions in this thread. What, then, would be the responsible alternative? It seems to me that responsibility requires choice.
My expressed view was, clearly, that we should just use the resources up like there's no tommorrow and then one day it's "uh-oh, there's no more oil. Now what?" I assumed that this would be a good way to proceed. Now I've changed my mind, with the help of enlightening arguments such as "you're a troll." I thank you.
Could it be that such enormous changes in the world never happen so suddenly? Could it be that we are even now being forced along the path towards a different way of doing things? Is it possible that as certain threshholds approach, we put more effort into dealing with them? Might my original insult to all that is good and true, that I think we'll adapt quickly once we're forced to, has some merit after all?
Which of my character flaws should I look to to answer these questions?

The responsible thing to do is to use the non-renewable resources to fuel research into the creation and use of stable, renewable resources.

If we use up millions of years of stored energy now, then the future generations will not be better able to solve the problem, because they won't have the energy to invest into research and development.

Switching over is going to cost a lot of energy, and we damn well better make the switch while we still have the energy to fuel it. Otherwise we have to crawl back up the tech tree with fewer resources.

disagreeing is fine. people wondered if you were trolling because you were saying things that were clearly not directly on the topic at hand, and flippant, and seeming potentially intentionally inciting (rather than insightful). if you read this claim's conversation, it's actually quite calm & well-reasoned.

but you made an argument against stopping using the resources entirely -- as if that were what was proposed, when it wasn't. then you said things like "They're going to run out eventually. Use them now, use them later. What's the real difference?" and we tried to answer that. tell me how that was the wrong thing to do.

"The statement assumes we'll be forced to in any case, and getting into the position of being forced to is irresponsible, as proven by previous assertions in this thread. What, then, would be the responsible alternative? It seems to me that responsibility requires choice."

No, it doesn't, actually. because if we have to fix it in 100 years, and we fix it in 75, then we've managed to fix it before we had to. on the other hand, if we're on track to come up with alternatives in 75 years but run out of the natural resources in 10, we're hosed. Planning ahead isn't stupid.

I went camping this weekend. we didn't take enough water on our last hike. By the time we noticed, we were 4 miles from civilization (and 2,000 feet below it) and out of water -- almost out of beverage entirely (we had some fruit juice). At the beginning of the trip, had we known we were short on water, we could have made the decision -- use it quickly, or use it slowly. Either way, it was a limited amount, but if you use it slowly, you have a better chance of getting to a water supply before you run out, rather than having to hike thirsty. It's amazing to me that you recognize that we have limited resources and don't see a point in trying to ration them -- most people who argue against conservation just don't get that it's a limited supply.

Will we adapt when we have to? maybe. If we have time. But what if there are the mass riots some predict? If millions of people end up freeing in the winters? If tens of millions starve or die of malnutrition because our current system expects food to be shipped back and forth?

Perhaps our best & brightest will be collected in cities, where they will starve, or in rural communities without the equipment to do research & development. Why risk it? why not buy ourselves the time, by using resources more slowly while we figure out what the next plan is?

Or what if fossil fuels aren't the limiting factor -- what if we discover that there's something great we can do with some other non-renewable resource, like a particular isotope of a particular element that we can't make efficiently enough to be worthwhile, but which we've found -- and then squandered -- a small amount of?

Yes, it's crippling to not let yourself use something at all. that's hardly better than running out of it. But using it up rapidly -- more rapidly than you have any real need to -- reduces your options for the future, at no gain. that's irresponsible.

Oil, in particular. will get much more expensive before we run out. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for everyone who can afford it to have their own private jet right now. Conserving oil will allow us to ensure our energy security by finding alternatives, ideally before the high price of energy causes the world economy to slow to a crawl.

I guess your argument is that the high price of oil will be what makes other sources of energy worthwhile, but there are policy solutions there (a fossil fuel tax, for example) that can affect the price now to make developing alternatives worthwhile before supply reaches crisis level.

Similarly, we should be cautious with our other natural resources, to avoid the fate of Easter Island.