# Will We Run Out of Resources by 2050? New Study...



## j d worthington (Oct 25, 2006)

While I've had a pretty gloomy view of this for some time, even I'd not seen quite this bad a prognosis. It sounds a lot like scaremongering to me for it to be that close, but perhaps not. Anyone want to share thoughts?

Humans living far beyond planet's means: WWF - Yahoo! News

One thing is for certain: If this study is at all correct on how much we're overshooting the planet's ability to recycle, we can't afford to keep arguing about it any more, period. Those who feel we human beings haven't made that much of an impact have got to wake up and face the facts: the world's population has near doubled during my lifetime alone, and the increase in industrialization brought about an almost exponential increase in wastage as compared to the levels existing before. If there's any truth to this report at all, things are looking extremely grim....


----------



## carrie221 (Oct 25, 2006)

Okay that is very very scary if that is true...


----------



## Saltheart (Oct 25, 2006)

We probably will run out of resources eventually, if not at 2050. The problem with Capatalistism is that it assumes that you have infinite supply, when in reality Earth has limited resources (yes, vast in amounts, but limited nonetheless). Add that up with the fact that people are getting lazier to take individual responsibility for the economy and environment where resources stem from, and interpolate that with the exponential growth of population, and that will be quite easy to see.


----------



## Azathoth (Oct 25, 2006)

Quite honestly, I'd like to see their methodology.  2050 just sounds like a way too convenient number; half a century away, just far enough into the future that it becomes a substantial threat, but just soon enough so that politicians can lavish money on environmentalist movements like the WWF to find a way to stop it.  (Sorry, I'm extremely skeptical on this subject; I'm a staunch supporter of environmental protection and conservation, but these far left groups have just made a joke out of the subject...)


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 26, 2006)

Azathoth said:


> Quite honestly, I'd like to see their methodology. 2050 just sounds like a way too convenient number; half a century away, just far enough into the future that it becomes a substantial threat, but just soon enough so that politicians can lavish money on environmentalist movements like the WWF to find a way to stop it. (Sorry, I'm extremely skeptical on this subject; I'm a staunch supporter of environmental protection and conservation, but these far left groups have just made a joke out of the subject...)


 
You know, that's sort of what hit me... that number. Granted, it may be "rounded off" for a more impressive benchmark, but still... if things were in that desperate a strait, I'd think that it'd be more likely there'd be tons of pressure not to say anything, to prevent panic -- as it's unlikely that any possible changes would make much of a difference if we're that close. This isn't to say that I don't think we're either dangerously close to a point of no return, or have passed it -- as noted in other threads, I'm inclined to the latter; but just that number is suspicious to me. I still think the _genuine _prognosis is extremely grim in all truth, but I, too, would like to know more about their methodology.

Has anyone else heard any more on this study? Any details like that? Any scientific journals reporting on it?


----------



## Azathoth (Oct 26, 2006)

You can find out more about the research here:



> http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf



It actually appears rather scientific, despite my misgivings.  

I'm still skeptical, however...I just don't want environmental protection to be turned into a joke with false alarms and stupid agendas.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 26, 2006)

Thanks for the link!


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 16, 2006)

The only way its going to change for the better is when we'll become inconvenience. But I fear the moment that happens, it will be too late.  For now, we should do what we can to minimize the damage by consuming less and take measures to protect the environment.


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 17, 2006)

Did H G Wells know?  Was he able to look into that future?  We're back to the paradox of time travel here!


----------

