Foxy wrote: “I stand by my earlier post.”
I would expect nothing less…and, sadly, nothing more.

I appreciate that what I wrote was counter-intuitive and therefore, for many people, wrong. As I said, if you don’t know you’re in a box, you can hardly think outside it.
I’ve been making the point for 30 years, that mankind, in all its history, has never run out of a resource. Perhaps one in a hundred understand that. Most don’t want it to be true and therefore, despite not being able to refute it, refuse to accept it. Equally I been pointing to the fact that almost all resources we use, and most certainly all the resources we rely on, have been becoming more not less plentiful over the course of the industrial age. But again, despite this being established beyond doubt by research such as that which I posted earlier, most people reject or disregard it because it’s beyond their level of comprehension.

The point isn’t that we are obviously using these resources, we clearly are. But the point is that, as compared to our usage the resources are becoming more plentiful.
It’s probably also useful to define a resource. Resources don’t exist in and of themselves. Man creates them. Flint is just another rock lying around until man works out how to use it to make spear-points…then, and only then, does it become a resource. Oil was just a sludge that befouled agricultural land until man made it a resource. So the resource exists because of man and whether man wants to use it. If it ceases to be of value to man, it ceases to be a resource.
To try to explain the thinking as to resource quantity, take the example of copper. There was a time in the 1970s that ‘experts’ predicted the exhaustion of copper supplies and the resultant end of the telecommunications revolution. By looking at the level of known resource and extrapolating the then current usage of copper, they were right.

/cont

/cont

What they failed to understand, which Julian Simon demonstrated , was that this was the wrong way to think about the future. What happened with copper was that (1) more resources were found, (2) optic fibre was discovered as a substitute for copper and then (3) the wireless phenomena occurred. End result, copper is now more plentiful as compared to current usage than it has been for centuries. ie we aren’t going to run out of copper despite what they said in 1970s.

I think part of the problem for most people here is that the ramifications of this type of thinking are that it destroys the entire ‘sustainability’ cult and people are so wedded to that erroneous way of thinking that they just can’t let it go.

Now, I’d just like to note that all of your claims are made without evidence and are basically factually wrong:

• “extensive pollution of air, water, and land,” Well that’s only true of developing nations. But as always happens, as they become rich enough to afford it they resolve those problems as every developed nation has done.

• “ rapid depletion of resources such as minerals and fresh water”. That’s simply false. Didn’t read my link, as a starting point, I guess. There is no depletion of resources (see above).

• “a mass extinction of other species.” Evidence?

JF AUS tries to offer an example of a lost resource – “Australia has run out of the southern bluefin tuna” But from the ‘ Status of Australian Fish Stocks Reports’ as prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences…” This global stock [of SBFT] is classified as recovering”. So not run out at all. But this raises an important point in this issue. Often we are told that this or that species is extinct or endangered when in fact it’s merely endangered in some location. For example the Gouldian Finch is listed as endangered whereas any reasonably large pet store in Australia would likely have the finches for sale. But it endangerd in some locations, not overall.

Loudmouth, a couple of clarifications.
I would question the terms of reference that concluded 1.2 million Chinese residing in Australia.
It is possible that the correct term would more than likely be that their ancestry is of Chinese descent.
But pretty much nearly all of the respondents would be Aussies as they were born in Australia.
Also I would not invest too much in the 'one child' policy because it was not a national directive, but one directed at a particular demographic, not sure if it was aimed at those living in the country or the cities.
Either way there was a get out of jail free card because you could still have another child, but you had to pay a fee to the govt.
I suppose it was treated as some kind of fine for not complying with the one child policy.

Not nit picking but the grounds for saying we are not running out of anything are very shaky
The author of those posts claims insight for himself and lack of it for the rest of us
Water, is part of this world right now nearly out of water
Oil, have we not spoken hundreds of times about peak oil
A country home has a larder, placed and stocked for future need/use
A proven benefit in flood fire or just bad times, asking that we humans do the same is not silly
How sure can we be we can sustain growth forever, population/economic/productivity/ is forever growth the only path

This morning we hear of Russian and was it Chinese or North Koreans? flying in another country's air space
We may be much the same as 1936,watching plans for a war under our noses
Why must we have wars? yes the world is in trouble

Tragically, War appears the only way to curb population ! It should be avoidable by deploying sense but the majority of consumers are against it !