LOL. You gave me a lot to think about. Thanks.
Regarding known resources, yes, of course, there is more to find. But I understand that, for most resources, what we are now finding is inferior resources far below the level we once found. There was a time, for instance, when you could poke a hole in Texas and have oil gush out for decades. Now we go to the great expense of fracking to get a well that lasts a few years. Or compare the massive mining efforts to obtain copper today with the readily available copper nuggets years ago.
So yes, for uranium (U-235), let's hope that we find much more that is economically obtainable. That's not the trend I am seeing in other resources. ( see
Amazon product ASIN 1644380684) I suspect most of the readily obtainable stuff is already known.
Regarding obtaining uranium from ocean water, good luck with that. I do hope it works, but it sounds like a stretch to me. If we had to do that, that would be a sign that we were turning from easily obtained uranium to somehow separating the dispersed uranium molecules that are mixed up with everything else in the ocean.
Regarding making liquid fuel from CO2 and water, that is certainly an interesting concept. It was proposed some time ago, and I haven't heard much about it since. Forbes is very negative on its viability (
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesm...lanet-so-dont-say-they-could/?sh=377df21869a4). Thermodynamically, it takes a huge amount of energy to get over the barrier to form complex hydrocarbons. Once you get molecules to that energy level, the second law tends to drive them away from complex hydrocarbons. Nature got around it by using intense pressure, something that would be hard for humans to duplicate. So its easy to propose something like this. The devil is in the details. Let's hope it works.
Regarding population pressures on the earth, the commonly cited problems are climate change, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of rivers, freshwater use, loss of natural land, biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosols, and chemical pollution. (
https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf) All of these are amplified by population. Sure, let's hope that we can solve all of these, even if population were to grow significantly. But the common factor in all of these is population.
Biodiversity loss might be huge. Take, for example the attempt to build a sealed environment with plants, animals and people known as Biosphere 2. It failed, as they soon needed to duct in fresh air. To the person who suggested putting billions of people in an orbiting version of Biospere 2, uh, that is a huge task. We can't even do it on earth. Now perhaps, with the right combination of life, it would have been possible. We don't know. The point is that life is very complex. Every species affects the Earth in some way. As many species disappear, it can affect the environment in many ways. And we humans seem to be driving many other species into extinction. That is a concern.
A learner who prefers not to have his mass converted into energy,
Merle