I just supposed that resource depletion and the environment going to hell was based on scientific data, not economic opinions.
FWIW, my points were never based on economics but on physics. Economics ultimately involves money, and that creates a problem when we study this issue because we can create money easily, but that doesn't remove physical limitations.
We can see this in current circumstances. We believe that technology will allow for more crude oil production, but that didn't happen, even when oil prices tripled. Instead, we're now using unconventional oil, which has higher energy costs.
This is where the error involving economics comes in. Some skeptics argue that we are "saved" because crude oil production costs are now as high as that of unconventional oil, and that makes unconventional oil production feasible. The problem is that we need cheap oil no matter the source, which means less than $30 a barrel, and that means significant increases in crude oil production. In fact, this was the forecast given by skeptics backed in 2004 or earlier: by this time crude oil production will reach over 100 Mb/d and the price of oil will plummet to around $20 a barrel. Instead, we are now literally scraping the barrel by using unconventional oil to meet increasing demand and paying oil at three times the price of what we expected. Even Saudi Arabia, which boasted in 2009 that it could easily breach 15 Mb/d, is barely exceeding 10 Mb/d.
The second problem when economics is used involves peak demand. Skeptics argue that peak demand is a "solution" to peak oil because it will make oil consumption more efficient. But in global capitalist systems efficiency doesn't led to less consumption but to more, because oil producers and investors will obviously sell unused oil to those who need it.
This problem is related to another, i.e., assuming that the rest of the population is like the U.S., where consumption has reached a saturation point and where the middle class is large. The reality is, unfortunately, the opposite: most of the world's population need more resources and energy to meet basic needs, if not middle class wants.
How much energy and resources are we talking about here? The ave. global ecological footprint per capita is equivalent to that of Turkey, but the bio-capacity of the earth will allow only for conditions equivalent to that of Cuba. A growing global middle class, military forces, a financial elite, most businesses, and governments will obviously not want such conditions, and yet will have to accept the same. Worse, as population increases and the effects of environmental damage and global warming persist, then bio-capacity decreases further.
Thus, we have a global economy that has to deploy the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to meet the needs of a growing global population with more money, a financial elite that wants to make even more money by lending more money to the same population, businesses that want to make more money by selling more goods and services to the same population, governments that want businesses to make more money so that they can get more tax revenues, military forces that want to make sure that more money keeps flowing so that they get armaments, the same forces that need to be deployed and engage in "police action" to justify military costs (passed on to the public), oil production that can barely catch up with increasing demand, and the long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming that are taking their toll on human lives, property, and resources.
What will happen next? Can we find out by looking at what happened the past few decades, then factor in these additional predicaments?