• kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    2·
    9 hours ago

    Really the bottle neck currently is not that finite resources are drying up, it’s that distribution and refinement of those resources isn’t fast and organized enough to be where they need to be when they need to be there in the state they need to be in. But if that supply chain were completely effortlessly smooth, it would still come to a grinding halt as soon as non-renewable resources without viable alternatives run out, which would take less time with the smoother supply chain.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    26·
    1 day ago

    The planet with finite resources is more than enough to sustain every living person on the planet and probably more. The problem is that those limited resources are being horded and guarded by a handful of people.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      3·
      16 hours ago

      Not if some of those resources are things like oil. It’s gonna run out eventually.

      But like, yes, in principle there’s plenty of resources, especially as the main source of energy is the sun. But there won’t be if that resource usage grows infinitely, even if people stop hoarding. It’s going to become a problem eventually no matter what, unless the endless pursuit of growth ends

  • Una@europe.pub
    121·
    1 day ago

    Problem is, this is spherical hole, everyone knows everything goes into square hole

  • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    1 day ago

    But the main resource (money) is just an imaginary thing that can be created at will

    • Landless2029@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 hours ago

      It was probably better when money was literal precious metals since those are finite. Now that money is imaginary it’s exponentially easier for the lizard folk to hoard massive amount of “money.”

  • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    32·
    1 day ago

    I hate this argument, like yeah it is right, but what is the limit? If we have 8bi people, and it can hold a few trillion, we could still grow a incomprehensible ammount.

    (No, climate change doesn’t show we hit the limit, there is more than one limit, and it shows the limit of carbon emissions, growth doesn’t require carbon)

    • Genius@lemmy.zip
      4·
      23 hours ago

      But we’ll still need to switch to communism before we hit a few trillion in population.

      But your framing of the issue, and the post, miss one of the key points of the infinite growth paradox - the productive capacity of the human workforce is also limited. And we’re beginning to hit that limit. 100 years ago, the average household worked 40 hours a week at a factory with a wife at home to do chores. Today, the average household works 80 hours a week at an office and does chores on weekends. Where is all that extra labour value going? Into the pockets of billionaires. And every year, the billionaires expect more profits than the year before.

      Everyone is burnt out and most people will never own a house. We’re approaching the limit of what workers can give to Capital. The system will assuredly fall when we hit the absolute of that limit, and Capital is trying to get AGI running before then so that capitalism doesn’t have to end when that limit is reached.