Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Bennett W. Brown
9 Followers
AndreaMalnar
63 Followers
Renaud J. Bélanger
0 Followers
La-Bohemianna
0 Followers
Alvina Shaw
56 Followers
threeblackdotsApr 19, 2009
The graphic is talking about "reserves" which is basically all the "economically feasible" resources we know about:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_resource_classification#Mineral_reserves">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_resource_clas ...</a>
dacrisApr 20, 2009
Silver FTW! Get it now... only 29 years until it's all gone!
ramilehtiApr 20, 2009
I would have liked a graph that:1. States sources and methodology.2. One that uses the expected growth of demand. As this will give a better picture of the real outcome. Let's say 3% annual growth rate. As this will correlate pretty well with global economic growth since early 80's.3. One that uses simple layout so that you can compare the values.
vincentthomasApr 20, 2009
SpeedSteamBoat: I'm afraid that is entirely false. Creationists are fundamentalists who take their biblical beliefs and try to make them work with science. Intelligent Design advocates work ground up from the theory of evolution and try to show how it could not exist without some sort of design intervention. Not everything in science has a testable hypothesis, and ID certainly does have a valid theory. Simply put, where did life come from? There has not been a valid theory of the origin of life to this day, which gives credence to the idea that possibly something created it. In the same way that we discovered quarks and charge based not upon observing them, but rather the effects for which a such a causal entity must exist, we may discover the traces of intervention in evolutionary processes.Did anything I just said ignore any school of science? Did I invalidate ANY known science, for that matter? Not at all. Perhaps my given theories within a particular field of science vary from those of other scientists, but I certainly didn't trample scientific principles to arrive at my conclusion. I got to my conclusion the way that we have with much science, especially in physics. It's completely scientifically based, and there is nothing unscientific about positing the possibility that a causal entity exists when evidence points you in that direction.I'm not trying to puff myself up, but can you seriously tell me how we went from a world without living matter to even a world with one living cell, all through unguided random processes?It is very unsettling to me that our culture is so set against ID as if it is unscientific, but as my explanation of the principles of ID shows, it is based off of the same principles and line of reasoning by which we've made histories greatest scientific advances.A documentary by Ben Stein was recently made. He isn't the best ID advocate out there, not being a scientist himself, but there is a very important section of the movie at the end: an interview with him and Richard Dawkins. He says a few things that I think are rather dumb, but he manages to ask at least the one important question. Where did it come from? How did we get from unorganic, dead matter to living beings? Dawkins simply can not answer, repeatedly saying "we don't know". In the end, Dawkins gives a slight consent by admitting that perhaps some race of aliens may have seeded life here on earth, and that may be the apparent "signature" that we seem to find in all biological life forms. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Watch it if you don't believe me. But at this point I wish he would of asked Richard Dawkins, "but where did the aliens come from?" You see, even one of the worlds most prominent scientific writers doesn't have a theory of life. Following the evidence logically to a conclusion that something created life, rather than simply repeating "I don't know", seems quite a bit more scientific than me, even if some may view the implications as supernatural.Of course, this is a very quick explanation of ID. I just wanted to show that it does have a basis in scientific reality, and should be treated with at least some respect.
bipolarruledoutApr 20, 2009
Population Growth; don't neglect it. It's not sustainable; you can argue what the numbers mean but if it's 30 years or 300 years it still doesn't change the fact.
bipolarruledoutApr 20, 2009
And since it's distant we shouldn't worry about it at all or try and change the outcome?
demiz23Apr 23, 2009
standard of living and wastefulness are not related. All this is ridiculous anyways, eventually landfills will become gold mines and biochemical engineering will allow us to manipulate matter so that we never "run out" of anything worth having.
rheaumeApr 27, 2009
Too bad youll be dead when you could find out your wrong.
skippydoorknobApr 29, 2009
Elephants use a lot of resources.
surianeeMay 1, 2009
Isn't that a poke ball?!! germanium 35%
nyxerebosMay 5, 2009
"But natural resources will sure end someday, they are not infinite." None of those elements are leaving the planet. It's inefficient to mine the world's largest deposit of gold (dissolved in seawater), but possible, and to dig up and recycle landfill. It's just not cost effective right now. This graph makes all manner of assumptions about use and available reserves that are uncertain.
onder84Oct 12, 2009
all these word they dont just say .. maybe in future .. really interesting <a class="user" href="http://www.vizyonfilmizle.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.vizyonfilmizle.net</a>
onder84Oct 16, 2009
these statics are can be change within time i think .. <a class="user" href="http://www.vizyonfilmizle.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.vizyonfilmizle.net</a> here is a sample for that
pmoreau87Jan 10, 2012
Translation: Not very long.