[AgentR11]

At the other extreme one could say that the correct rate is "as fast as you can dig it out of the ground". I'd argue that that's dangerous because you create a system that is dependent on that consumption and will inevitably crash when the resource runs out.

So would anyone like to provide a rational for picking a rate somewhere in between those two extremes?

As fast as possible while achieving durable economic gain from the consumption is the correct answer. You use the resource to create competitive advantage so that you are in an even stronger position to exploit or create the next available resource. You allow the difficulty in extracting the last 50% and last 10% act as the economic motivator through price/scarcity to enable the next generation of resources to come online; hopefully at a price that is too high for the folks who didn't keep up in round n-1. Thus you magnify your advantage through each exploitation interval.

[Hawkcreek]

Considering the big picture, your personal anecdote is a moot point. BTW ignorance is overrated.

Restating my personal anecdote - since you didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say---Until we exhibit some capacity for controlling our propensity for overusing resources (we don't seem to have that capacity), the original thread question is moot. I still believe that is true.
And you are correct, ignorance is overrated. Deliberate exhibition of ignorance even more so.

[Ibon]

I was mentioning on another thread that our biosphere when healthy is invisible. Like only noticing oxygen when it is absent. So this paleolithic mind set has been preserved during the whole time we played god with technology extracting , extracting and extracting because our biosphere has not sent us back any significant signals to the contrary. Our economic system and technology is basically the same as when the Plains Indians got horses and rifles and better extracted game. Fossil fuels put us on 200 years of steroids and we have played god with technology not having changed one bit the paleolithic emotional orientation.

So the outstanding question remains to what degree the 21st century will be an inflection point when our biosphere sends us back some real hard signals that unregulated resource extraction has negative consequences.

We haven't really applied our adaptation yet to a visible biosphere full of disruption and instability. We have behaved as we have because of the invisible nature of our biosphere. It seems that in this century this is about to change.

I don't think we will even begin to question the correct rate to consume finite resources until our biosphere and human overshoot make limits painfully visible.

It hasn't happened yet although it sure feels out there like we are a couple of seconds before midnight.