This kind of nonsense reasoning had people predicting civilization end within 15 or 30 - back in the 70s...

Resources aren't a fixed notion, crude oil was worthless and toxic before we learned how to refine it and suddenly it's a critical resource.

Natural ecosystems are considered vital today, but if we were to come up with artificial biospheres we would be looking back at the days people got infected by malaria and tick born disease living in uncontrolled environments like we look at people who live(d) in cities without sewage systems.

Anything can be a resource, and be worthless or harmful, depending on the context. Claiming that resource problems can't be solved is a logical fallacy - resources are anything you use to solve a problem.

You are referring to the 1970 MIT LtG model which was updated in 2019 and still predicts a global collapse? https://medium.com/predict/2040-the-world-will-collapse-this...

Or the depleted global fish stocks? https://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pd...

Or the fact that if everyone went vegetarian we could free up 80% of the farmland in the world?

Whilst resource are not fixed, like lab grown meats, supplements which can alter people's diets like histidine will reduce red meat consumption, I am aware some businesses have also kept some resources under wraps from the public so I agree they are not a fixed notion, but in ten years the US lifestyle has increased its use of resource from 4 planet earths to just over 5 planet earths.

Sure anything can be a resource, we might even be able to use plate tectonics as landfill waste disposal because everything came from this planet so is technically from the Earth, and who knows what resources could be mined from the planets core, or do we get into mining Helium13 from the moon?

there is a still a problem and that is quality of life, being kept in smaller more expensive livestock pens called homes.

What price do you put on having rolling pastures all around your home and no manmade noise around you?

With a global population set to peak in 2100, we still have 80's years of declining quality of life to put up with.

>What price do you put on having rolling pastures all around your home and no manmade noise around you?

And yet that's much cheaper and attainable than a small "livestock pen" in a large city :) If you don't mind living without infrastructure - building a cabin in the middle of nowhere isn't that expensive and doesn't seem like there will be a rush to this any time soon. Population seems to be heavily concentrated and the rural areas are being depopulated if anything.

I agree to an extent, but the matter involved on this planet is finite, the added entropy it can handle is finite. Our power consumption is growing exponentially and that has to stop at some point or we will just cook. We will find new resources like clean fusion energy, but that won't let us sink more heat. We worried about food back in the 70s but then we got better at agriculture, except it isn't sustainable what we do to boost the yields, the soil is getting used up. We can do better, but there are simply limits, and with no deaths we will find them much sooner. We will have to expand off earth, which is another seemingly impossible problem, or stop our growth, which isn't technologically difficult, but apparently socially impossible.

> We worried about food back in the 70s but then we got better at agriculture, except it isn't sustainable what we do to boost the yields, the soil is getting used up. We can do better, but there are simply limits, and with no deaths we will find them much sooner.

See but when you're saying this and mention expanding off earth in the next sentence - why do we need soil to produce food ? Or plants even ? Even now there's efforts to process algae into protein etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all that we have specific nutrient production farms via some simple GMO organism in some large scale industrial setting - vertical stacking, ocean surface farms, etc. Compared to space colonisation this seems far less far fetched.

For protein we can probably crispr in the ability for us to synthesize the essential amino acids that we currently cannot. Synthesizing mono unsaturated fats directly from co2 and water is also certainly possible. Carbs seem harder but likely possible, agriculture might become just the way we get micronutrients, and all macros require no land. So I agree all that is far more possible in the near future than leaving earth. The energy required for that stuff is still a huge problem. Even if all our power generation was renewable, simply using all that power dumps the heat into our environment. Right now that isn't so noticeable, but our power demands are growing exponentially, the estimates on when that starts being a climate issue vary from centuries to decades, but its out there.

Resource use is a separate axis to longevity. The right industry (we already have the tech) and a hundred billion can live sustainably on what is currently desert. Remove all the tech and the sustainable population of the entire planet is mere tens of millions.

World population is also a separate axis.

If lifespan is unchanged, population goes up or down depending on rate of new children. Rich and resource-hungry westerners have the lowest reproductive rate. If we get a perfect fountain of youth, we can’t forecast how society will or won’t change. More kids, or fewer?

Likewise resources per person, will we stay in the rat race forever, or shift to working as little as possible as soon as the mortgage on the third mansion has been paid off?

Also, “no ageing” doesn’t mean “immortality”, because current rates imply there’s a 50% chance of dying from accidents or malice in roughly any thousand year period. Though again, no way to predict how that might change with eternal youth.

We are made of a bunch of atoms and a bit of solar energy.

If you take volcanic rock like basalt or granite + water there is every atoms you need to make a human. The rest is a bit of energy.