At what point do you agree that finite resources begin to have an effect?

It's obvious we do have finite resources issues, what with many resources being - you know - finite.

Of course it's possible that in a different universe we might have solved them by asteroid mining, magic space unicorns, or in some other way.

It would be nice to think solutions are at least possible.

But - your argument makes no sense, because empirically we're limited by political frames that guarantee flawed and self-destructive decision making.

I'd suggest it's impossible to solve resource issues until we have more reality-based decision-making.

And since that seems to be in no danger of happening, and since no one here has any idea how to make it happen (I certainly don't) any argument about what might be possible in a different reality is moot.

Practically, it's not even obvious that better decision-making would solve the problem. We're not lacking in IQ collectively, but we've had very limited success doing anything practical here.

And that's after seven years or so.

Would we really be any better at running the world? Possibly we would - I'm not sure I'd want to lay odds either way.

But dealing with a potentially hostile population and an even more hostile capitalist nomenklatura is not a trivial challenge.

In fact, I find very little difference between my opinions and those of yourself or Jake, on the issues under discussion.

Which is why I find mystifying and not a little frustrating when you use ecology as a wedge issue to differentiate us.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}