>>10852669>whenever a "resource" runs out, we just find some other "resource" to replace it>in reality, the "resource" was just a substitute>we don't need to sustain these "resources" because a replacement always existsDo you really believe that? Could be true in some cases but definitely not in all of them and it would put extra demand on the substitute which also might not be very appropriate, might be unrenewable and at risk of depletion as well and might lack some qualities or have poorer ones (e.g. conductivity in metals etc).
Some people have this idea that we can just use "technology" like a magic want to just fix the problems in hindsight (as with geoengineering, creating new substitutes or creating artificial foods, animals and synthetic materials). That's probably one of the most dangerous ideas ever as it can prevent preventive action and structural change in the present which are needed even if a lot of these things would work out well which they won't.
But I'm not sure what you mean by
>in reality, the "resource" was just a substituteDo you mean we're using suboptimal materials to spare more scarce resources or something like that? Like it's probably the case with gold and diamonds to some extent?
With resources I'm not just refering to materials, fossil fuels etc but also to the natural environment/habitat. For example a lot of resources are renewable or could be recycled but aren't the way we use/deplete/build/dispose them. For example I would also include soil, insects, clean air and water. Sustainable preservation of these are required for the environment to remain well habitable for humans and for it to produce its natural products.
