I most certainly do not support killing people. Furthermore, I am not blaming the world’s poor for the depletion of natural resources…
It is my impression that you support abortion on demand, which is supporting the killing of people. But if my impression is wrong, you can clarify.
Within my lifetime there was a substantial danger of depletion of a “vital natural resource”; lead. After all, we needed lead not only for bullets and radiation shields. We needed massive quantities of it for paint; pottery glazes; for containers of all kinds; for the huge batteries required to store even minimal electrical charges; for water pipes; for solder. People were digging out some of the smallest lead deposits that could be imagined due to the shortage. And, of course, much of the mining and processing was very destructive of the environment.
Well, larger deposits were discovered. Then we decided not to use it at all in paint, water pipes, most solder, and batteries became smaller and smaller, and many batteries no longer contain lead at all. Lead mines capable of production lie idle in many places, including the area in which I live. Theoretically, we will still run out of lead sometime or other, but it is such a remote thing now that nobody even thinks about it.
The Osage who once inhabited my part of the country faced such a severe crisis in the availability of game due to the presence of incoming tribes that many of them moved to less densely populated Oklahoma before any white men insisted that they do so.
And, of course, there is the fact that in the late 19th century, horses consumed nearly 1/3 of all agricultural production, and the environmental effects of the vast number of horses required for muscle energy were incredibly bad. It would have been easy then to foresee a food crisis caused by transportation needs, and extreme environmental degradation in and around large cities. But, of course, horse muscle energy was replaced by electrical and internal and external combustion energy, and the crisis never took place.
At one time, aluminum was more expensive than gold because the means of extracting it were little understood. Now, of course, we know that aluminum is one of the earth’s most pervasive elements, and that continued utilization of it is essentially a matter of efficient means of extraction.
The Yucca Mountain debate is almost mooted by the fact that the “nuclear waste” is now known not to be “waste” at all, but a useable resource. The “waste” slated to be stored there is worth billions and billions of dollars. Regulatory problems, of course, stand in the way of its use.
100 years ago, who would have ever foreseen the massive current use of silicon; an unbelievably abundant resource, that we now have? Who, even 60 years ago, would have foreseen how many millions of miles of copper wire would no longer be needed for electrical conduction because of microwave transmission and silicon circuitry?
One can take a “snapshot” of nearly any point in time and foresee crisis by assuming no change can possibly occur in resource utilization.
Those who predict crisis can make projections proving it by making assumptions. Those who don’t believe in the “Olduvai Gorge” scenario can make assumptions by which it is averted. Mankind has always faced potential resource crises. The resolution of such debates depends not so much on any demonstrable “facts” but on one’s belief in the ingenuity of mankind in solving resource problems.