On Jul 20, 12:52*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

We're NOT using up resources. More precisely, we're using resources
but we're accessing more than we're using. Today, there is five
times the known reserves of natural gas than there was just five
years ago.

Look up the Simon-Ehrlich wager in which a doom-sayer* wagered
$10,000 with a more pragmatic scientist over whether the scarcity of
ten commodities (picked by Ehrlich) would cost more (and therefore
be harder to find) in ten years. Ehrlich lost.

--------

Which commodities were they? *(Just about everything seems more
expensive to me.)

I mis-remembered. There were five (picked by Ehrlich). The wager was $1,000
each. Whatever the differential in price after a decade would go to the
winner.

chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten

"Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800
million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by
September 1990, without a single exception, the price of each of Ehrlich's
selected metals had fallen, and in some cases had dropped significantly.
Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in
1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade
later."



Why does costing more make them harder to find?

It doesn't. Being harder to find makes them cost more. Price is a convenient
metric for scarcity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah,you got it mixedup :-)

Population is the main problem I think.
Everything comes back to that.
Nature will soon organise a cull.