The idea sounds like science fiction: one day, the raw material reserves will be empty. The last metals will have been extracted from the earth, fertile soils will be depleted, clean water will be in short supply, and even modern technology will no longer be able to compensate for the shortage. The end of our resources is unlikely to be quite that simple. The earth’s elements do not disappear suddenly. Copper, lithium, iron or rare earths do not simply vanish. However, they are used in construction, burnt, mixed, distributed or diluted to such an extent that recovering them becomes technically difficult and economically costly. The crucial question is therefore not when the last raw material will disappear, but: how long can we sustain our rising consumption of materials without destabilising ecosystems, the economy and society?

A simple yes-or-no answer would be misleading. With fossil fuels, the situation is relatively clear: coal, oil and natural gas are predominantly burnt when used and cannot subsequently be recycled. The picture is different for metals. They remain present in principle, but are distributed across buildings, vehicles, electronics, landfill sites and waste streams. Nor do figures on known reserves act as a clock indicating when raw materials will finally run out. The US Geological Survey defines reserves as the portion of a raw material deposit that can be extracted under current technical and economic conditions. Rising prices, new discoveries, improved processes or changes to environmental regulations can increase or decrease this quantity.

However, this does not mean that extraction can continue indefinitely. New deposits may lie deeper, have lower concentrations, require more energy, or be located in regions that are ecologically and politically problematic. The Earth will therefore not suddenly run out of raw materials. But access to affordable, clean and geopolitically secure resources may become considerably more difficult.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, global extraction of natural resources has tripled over the past five decades. It rose from around 30 billion tonnes in 1970 to approximately 106 billion tonnes. Without fundamental changes, extraction could increase by a further 60 per cent by 2060 compared with 2020. The problem lies not only in the quantity available. According to the UNEP analysis, the extraction and processing of raw materials account for more than 60 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and a significant proportion of the health impacts of air pollution. At the same time, the extraction and processing of biomass is a major driver of land use, water stress and the loss of biodiversity.

Resource consumption is also distributed very unevenly. According to calculations by the International Resource Panel, people in rich countries consume, on a per capita basis, several times the amount of materials used in low-income countries, and consequently cause a greater environmental impact. This is not a moral indictment of individual consumers. It is, first and foremost, a description of an economic system that still operates predominantly according to the same principle: extract, produce, sell, use and throw away.

Recycling is essential, but it is no magic solution. Not every material can be fully recovered. Products often consist of composites, adhesives, coatings and minute quantities of material. Some raw materials are lost during use; others are exported, incinerated or incorporated into products that remain in use for decades. In the European Union, only 12.2 per cent of the materials used in 2024 came from recovered sources. Despite modest progress, the European economy therefore remains predominantly linear. According to the European Environment Agency, the target of significantly increasing this proportion by 2030 is unlikely to be met at the current rate.

Nevertheless, the potential is considerable. The International Energy Agency estimates that a consistent expansion of recycling could reduce the need for new mining projects for key minerals required for the energy transition by around five to 30 per cent by 2040, depending on the raw material and how the situation develops. On average, recycled lithium, nickel and cobalt generate considerably fewer greenhouse gas emissions than material from new mines. Recycling cannot, therefore, completely replace mining. However, it can significantly reduce the pace of mining, its environmental impact and dependence on individual supplier countries.

The debate on resources is often characterised by two extremes. On the one hand, there is the notion of an imminent and total collapse. On the other, there is the belief that technological progress will automatically solve every problem without the need for social change. Both positions fall short. There is no scientifically credible date on which humanity will run out of all raw materials at the same time. Nor is there any guarantee that markets and new technologies will resolve every bottleneck in good time, fairly and without serious side effects.

The realistic danger lies in a combination of rising prices, supply disruptions, political dependencies, environmental damage and conflicts over water, land, energy and strategic raw materials. This is a conclusion drawn from observed consumption trends, the low rate of recycling and the concentration of supply chains – not a prediction of a fixed apocalypse.

There is no way back to an untouched Earth. We cannot return the raw materials that have already been extracted to their original deposits. Sealed-off landscapes, lost species and destroyed soils can often only be regenerated partially or over very long periods of time. But there is a path towards a new equilibrium. It does not lead back to a pre-industrial past. It leads to a society that uses energy, materials and technology more intelligently. A society in which products last longer, raw materials are not lost after a single use, and progress does not automatically mean higher consumption.

Humanity possesses the technical knowledge to bring about many of these changes. What has been lacking so far is not so much a new invention as a collective decision on the pace, distribution and limits of these changes.

Perhaps that is why we will not witness the end of all resources. Perhaps we will witness the end of the notion that everything can be available anytime, anywhere and in unlimited quantities.

What might a society look like that has to respond to resource scarcity, climate change and artificial intelligence?

Discover the future worlds of Paradies 4.0, find out more about the author Barry Redhead, or visit the English-language future portal Things-to.com. You can also find science fiction about consciousness, technology and the limits of human control in Barry Redhead’s collection of short stories, *The Cage of Consciousness*.