Non-Renewable Resource Depletion

[ACman]

One simple question: what non-renewable planetary resource(s) do you see running out within the next few hundred years and causing dependency problems? More specifically, which such resource(s) might nations go to war over?

.

A few notable exceptions that you should ignore for the purposes of this thread:

- Fuel
- Food

Kinda a combination of the two above but fertilizer?

75% of fertilizer is produced from hydrogen steam cracked off petroleum gas. So its food and fuel.

Otherwise, water?

Rare earths?

They talking about iron ore depletion in about 50 years. So iron ore?

Richard K Morgan wrote a bleak novel about conflict investment. Maybe art itself will be fought over.

 

[Spoonius]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

Food is not a non renewable resource and as for fuel thats not actually a natural resource either.
***
Fuel itself is not a natural resource as the word covers far to much. It can be made from natural resources some of which are non renewable and others are. Geothermal energy and hydro power are not fuel they are energy. Fuels are used to create energy.

I didn't say natural.



Basically, what I'm asking about are items, products or energies that human societies consume, and which will be very nearly depleted/exhausted within the next few hundred years.

It doesnt matter life finds a way and we will find other ways to do stuff.

True, but the solutions themselves can be costly and/or lead to further problems.

What angle are you wanting on this shortfall? Has this problem existed for hundreds of years, growing more and more severe with time, or has the invention of X thirty-seven years ago lead to an unanticipated demand for previously worthless Y?

Hmmm... preferably A, but I'm open to B (seems like a bit of a cop-out though).

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

What angle are you wanting on this shortfall? Has this problem existed for hundreds of years, growing more and more severe with time, or has the invention of X thirty-seven years ago lead to an unanticipated demand for previously worthless Y?

Hmmm... preferably A, but I'm open to B (seems like a bit of a cop-out though).

I agree with you on the A/B preference, at least it'll save you from having to base your plot on something ridiculous called, say, unobtainium.

As far as modern world dilemmas go, it's hard to think of ones which aren't either conceivably solvable or terribly mundane. You could possibly go down the whole global-warming route, with rising sea levels wiping out huge tracts of inhabited land causing massive overcrowding, but it's hard to use the GW argument without people instantly playing the 'hippy' card. Maybe increased industrialization in as-now developing countries could pollute global water sources, maybe the increased dependence on renewable energy could lead to heavily contested geothermal hot-spots (although you wanted to avoid fuel, and presumably by extension energy).

But I gotta say fella, I'm pretty much running on empty here. You've picked a toughie, no doubt.

 

[Ambi]

http://bit.ly/stockcheck2

According to this data, if fuel production continues to grow at the current rate, I will be about fifty four when the world runs out. Also, unless we have alternative materials or these ones can be recycled (someone look that up to find out, if you like), at the current rate of production growth, we have ten years left of new standard batteries, and thirteen years of new touch screens, computer monitors, solar panels, TV's, and x-ray screens.

Someone please check my interpretation isn't flawed. Do the 'years remaining' columns indicate how many years we have to utilise the resource, including reserves, or does it just indicate how many years we can obtain more of that resource at the current rate?

Either way, it looks like we're running out of all the resources that make our standard of living so high. Think of how scarce resources will be, taking into account population growth too.

 

[FrankatronX]

The time will come when we create vehicles capable of running on nothing but human bio mass so I'd say corpses...

for £300 please Bob.