The overpopulation/finite resources thing isn't what you think it is. The problem about this kind of thinking is that futurists just tend to make linear extrapolations of current trends. Now that's a recipe for failure and embarrassment. Population growth is decelerating, and has been for some time. Previous estimates have consistently overshot the mark; there is something called the low-range, or low fertility model, and it is those estimates that have turned out to be the most accurate. Despite this, the figures quoted in public only reference the medium and high growth models because they paint a much more dramatic and urgent story.
So, 7 billion now right? Actually that's +/- 100 million according to the UN. Guess what, based on the historically more useful low-range estimate, population peaks at 8.7 billion around 2045, and drops to 6.3 billion by 2100, that's less than what we have right now, those are the UN's own figures.
The only reliable predictions you can make about "resources" is that transformational technology will make some current "resources" obsolete, and others (which we don't even think of as being resources today) into highly valuable resources in the future. Which ones are anyone's guess, that's the entrepreneurs job of course.
So, 7 billion now right? Actually that's +/- 100 million according to the UN. Guess what, based on the historically more useful low-range estimate, population peaks at 8.7 billion around 2045, and drops to 6.3 billion by 2100, that's less than what we have right now, those are the UN's own figures.
The only reliable predictions you can make about "resources" is that transformational technology will make some current "resources" obsolete, and others (which we don't even think of as being resources today) into highly valuable resources in the future. Which ones are anyone's guess, that's the entrepreneurs job of course.