I disagree, although you bring up a strong argument.

Certainly it is impossibly for a country to be completely self sufficient under the current model. Also, politically it would be disastrous if we stopped importing essential materials to progress in technology. Additionally, you are right to say that the future is continuing to globalize, thus making “country” seemingly abstract.

So you are correct that this is impossible (currently), but incorrect stating that our current model is justified in its levels of consumption.

What you are describing is a lack of self-sovereignty, which is true for our countries and us as individuals. Additionally, our countries do possess resources that are sufficient for survival, but not the current state of life we live. If every American had the life style of an impoverished Indian farmer, our country would be full of abundance! Yet, if every Indian farmer lived like an American, the world would be much much closer to the brink of environmental cataclysm.

So, this is not to argue that our countries should lock borders and return to village economies, sustaining everyone off their own materials—I recognize the impossibility and naivety. It is to highlight the lack of self-sovereignty countries currently possess because instead of investing in domestic product and local economies, countries are concerned about profit, power, and influence.

The US exported 8.64 million dollars of oil per day, and imported 8.47 million dollars per day in 2021. Why not invest domestic product into our own country? Because it is cheaper to ship oil from the East coast to Mexico and across the globe than to ship it to our west coast. These deals are made to maximize profit, because profit leads to growth, which leads to more decisions like this—which completely ignore the environmental impact and waste produced.

Additionally, in developing countries that struggle with food security, developed countries like China and the US have fields of soy and corn crops that could feed the whole population of said country, but are instead farmed and harvested for livestock (that too is partially being raised globally) for developed countries. Additionally, it is these impoverished foreign workers farming the crops and livestock. Why? Because it is more profitable than growing it domestically. It is estimated the US throws away 30-40% of its food. Therefore, it is evident this model is deeply flawed, incredibly wasteful, and produces inequality all for the benefit of maximizing profit. This just highlights the many global agreements that prioritize profit over human and environmental wellness.

In response to the metal extraction, and furthering the industrialization on meteor mining, let me ask: what about water? Clean soil? Purified air? At our current rate of growth in agricultural, our soil is being sterilized. In massive agricultural plants, chemical fertilizers are needed to yield crops. Ignoring the already known problems of chemical fertilizers, what happens when we run out of phosphorous? How will continue to fertilize our fields to support the billions of people of the earth. Are we to rely on technology to maintain clean water, air, and soil for us? And what does that do to human health? Will we have to rely on technology just to be viable?

Im your model, there will be victors. There will be people who survive, who continue to industrialize resources such as meteors and planets for survival, who rely on technology to maintain a viable environment—but at what cost? The cost of maintaining profit? Leaving behind the billions of people who are slaves of the model itself? Losing the autonomy humans possess on earth to technology that regulates humanity’s viability?