Can this earth provide materials and resources for the mankind for another 2000 years more??

Question

Can this earth provide materials and resources for the mankind for another 2000 years more??

Answer 1

Yeah.  If mankind gets to the point where the population cannot be supported by the resource extraction and processing infrastructure of our civilization, the excess population will die.  Every species reaches an equilibrium with it's environment. Mankind uses tools to get resources in bulk and has the ability to transport resources to where they're needed, allowing local populations to survive and grow, so we have sustained a high growth rate for our size.  If we can not continue to solve the technical problems of production and the accompanying logistics, our growth rate will slow, stop, or reverse.  In the next 2000 years, we may develop fusion power, superfoods, advanced urban communities, etc. and continue to flourish.  We could also wipe ourselves out.

Answer 2

Yes it will,

but given the present state of leaps in scientific technology especially in space technology we will probably mining on surface of asteroids or other planets in another 125 years.

So earth will be mostly used for food resourcing and other materials will be brought in from outer space.

Answer 3

God knows.

Answer 4

It can provide even more than for several million years.

Answer 5

Earth has got enough resources for the next 2000 MILLION YEARS..... but not to satisfy the greed of mankind.

Answer 6

yes, if we don't use them

Answer 7

Natural resource are natural capital converted to commodity inputs to infrastructural capital processes They include soil, timber, oil, minerals, and other goods taken more or less from the Earth. Both extraction of the basic resource and refining it into a purer, directly usable form, (e.g., metals, refined oils) are generally considered natural-resource activities, even though the latter may not necessarily occur near the former.

A nation's natural resources often determine its wealth in the world economic system, by determining its political influence. Developed nations are those which are less dependent on natural resources for wealth, due to their greater reliance on infrastructural capital for production. However, some see a resource curse whereby easily obtainable natural resources could actually hurt the prospects of a national economy by fostering political corruption. Political corruption can negatively impact the national economy because time is spent giving bribes or other economically unproductive acts instead of the generation of generative economic activity. There also tends to be concentrations of ownership over specific plots of land that have proven to yield natural resources.

In recent years, the depletion of natural capital and attempts to move to sustainable development have been a major focus of development agencies. This is of particular concern in rainforest regions, which hold most of the Earth's natural biodiversity - irreplaceable genetic natural capital. Conservation of natural resources is the major focus of natural capitalism, environmentalism, the ecology movement, and Green Parties. Some view this depletion as a major source of social unrest and conflicts in developing nations

Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences exist.

Conservation is the sustainable use and management of natural resources including wildlife, water, air, and earth deposits. Natural resources may be renewable or non-renewable. The conservation of renewable resources like trees involves ensuring that they are not consumed faster than they can be replaced. The conservation of non-renewable resources like fossil fuels involves ensuring that sufficient quantities are maintained for future generations to utilise. Conservation of natural resources usually focuses on the needs and interests of human beings, for example the biological, economic, cultural and recreational values such resources have. The rain forest for example, contains a wide range of biodiversity, providing food stocks for local populations and a source of timber and medicines for other countries. Conservationists accept that development is necessary for a better future, but only when the changes take place in ways that are not wasteful. What the conservationist opposes is not the harnessing of nature for mankind's progression, but the fact that all too often the environment comes off the worse for wear.

Preservation, in contrast to conservation, attempts to maintain in their present condition areas of the Earth that are so far untouched by humans. This is due to the concern that mankind is encroaching onto the environment at such a rate that many untamed landscapes are being given over to farming, industry, housing, tourism and other human developments, and that we our losing too much of what is 'natural'. Like conservationists, some preservationists support the protection of nature for purely human-centred reasons. Stronger advocates of preservation however, adopt a less human-centred approach to environmental protection, placing a value on nature that does not relate to the needs and interests of human beings. Deep green ecology argues that ecosystems and individual species should be preserved whatever the cost, regardless of their usefulness to humans, and even if their continued existence would prove harmful to us. This follows from the belief that every living thing has a right to exist and should be preserved.

Answer 8

These days everyone is worried about oil. The primitive black goo has been linked to climate change, economic disruption and other problems, but make no mistake: We still need oil, and lots of it. Not only is American demand rising—this year it’s expected to top 21 million barrels per day—but ascendant economies in India and China have developed huge appetites for the stuff. The stark reality is that the supply is finite. "Peak oil" theorists argue that production is already maxed out, meaning imminent shortages and sharper price spikes; more optimistic experts believe that day is 20 to 30 years away. Both camps agree that the task ahead is twofold: Develop new supplies while learning to stretch existing reserves.