By David L. Brown
Economics, the dismal science, fails miserably when it comes to evaluating the long-term impact of resource depletion. If we were to apply the common-sense factors of future value to current resources, we would find them to be far more valuable in the future than they are today. Economists tend to ignore this fact. For all practical purposes, economists seem to believe that when any resource is used up, demand will cause a suitable alternative to be discovered and developed.
This flies in the face of the second law of thermodymics, which states that quite the opposite happens. The false assumption is made that there are an infinite number of alternative resources. And yet, the Earth is finite. Once a resource is gone, and once the next easy alternative is gone, there will come a time when there are no more viable alternatives. This is not only plain common sense, but it is hard to understand how economists can have arrived at such a wrong-headed conclusion.
As the resources of the Earth are depleted, where are we going to find those alternatives? On the Moon? Mars? In some galaxy far far away? Not likely.
Would it be too much to suggest that economists wish to please their masters, who are bent on profiting in the short term rather than taking any responsibility for the long term welfare of the planet and all life on Earth?