>yet another classic bullshit doomer prediction that never plays out where you'll conveniently not be around to admit you're wrong about.

Of course it hasn't played out yet, it's in the future. No one said the world was ending in 2010 and if they did it doesn't make others wrong. Your definition of doomerism is a very convenient strawman, it means "whenever someone in the past was pessimistic".

>Or did you think every time nvidia announces their quarterly results and the market puts a valuation on nvidia that we are allocating materials to nvidia?

Do I look like I care about the US pretend economy and stupid shit like the Nvidia stock bubble? Of course that's not closely pegged to material or energy use. I'm talking about larger trends, where you can see a clear correlation of GDP with energy use, material use, etc: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-person-vs-...

>The worst part? You keep telling everybody around you to place a bet on your model with their life savings despite never being able to produce an example where your model was right

Researchers built a world simulation model in the 70s. It was revisited recently and the resource use curves track closely to reality:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits...

I guess I'll just stop responding because you're clearly not interested in the scientific consensus or having an imagination beyond human exceptionalism.