@maxdancona,
Quote:They are claiming that phosphorus will reach a peak in the next 10 years and after that price rises will lead to a collapse of civilization.
Who is this "they" you speak of? There have been warnings about the finite supply of easily extractable phosphates for some time now. You yourself have said how important chemical fertilizers are in modern agriculture. Instead of flying off the handle, why not simply explain where new sources of phosphates may be found at a cost which can economically replace the sources we rely on now?
Quote:They are claiming that global GDP is about to fall.
No, no one is claiming that. The prediction was made that, if certain trends continue, increased prices will lead to economic downturns. These are
predictions, based on the nature of capitalist economies. They aren't laws determining future behavior.
Quote:
They are claiming that human civilization can't last more than a "few generations".
If the world food supply is affected,
people will be affected. "People" = "civilization", get it? We don't know what will happen in the span of a hundred years.
Quote:These are extreme claims.
Duh...yes, modern civilization is built on a rather fragile network and disruption to any system could have extreme consequences.
Quote:They aren't backed by science.
They're
based in science. And the economic implications which result. Clugston supplies the numbers. As far as I know, scientific critiques of his work haven't been carried out. But they could be, and probably will be. If his figures don't add up, if declining supplies of NNRs don't affect the economy, or if they're not declining at all, science will have proven him wrong. Ideally, science is self-correcting. As Clugston's findings are sourced, it shouldn't be difficult to prove him wrong, unlike trying to argue the existence of non-existence of an afterlife.
By the way, I don't understand your dismissal of "non-renewable natural resources" as a term. Did you even do a search? Here's the beginning of the wikipedia article:
Quote:A non-renewable resource (also called a finite resource) is a natural resource that cannot be readily replaced by natural means at a pace quick enough to keep up with consumption.[1] An example is carbon-based fossil fuels. The original organic matter, with the aid of heat and pressure, becomes a fuel such as oil or gas. Earth minerals and metal ores, fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) and groundwater in certain aquifers are all considered non-renewable resources, though individual elements are always conserved (except in nuclear reactions).
Quote:There is a difference between advocating for reasonable science-based policies and pushing alarmist conspiracy theories about the imminent demise of the human race.
There's also a difference between pushing alarmist conspiracy theories about the imminent demise of the human race and compiling data about the continued availability of the resources which nurture human civilization and the implications should they grow scarce in the future.