because it has all already been harvested, Or mostly, anyway. I guess, its like that bumper sticker says: EARTH FIRST- we'll mine the other planets later.
2006-10-25 15:14:52 · 12 answers · asked by Big hands Big feet 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
well, I know its still here, but I mean in a natural state, Like big nuggets, and raw crystals of assorted gems. I know it hasn't all been mined, yet, But Already mining companies have started processing microscopic gold, because all the known veins are gone. I find it sad, you dont have to, tho.
2006-10-25 15:31:45 · update #1
I think it's even more sad that people in the future won't have any of the resources we have now.
2006-10-25 15:23:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
85% of gold is still in the ground. We cannot get it all. And every rain brings more out of the ground. The earth first group is a group of miners. they aren't hurting anything. Gold mining is closely regulated. Recreational miners hardly make a dent in the streams . Then the first good rain changes everything all over again. There are plenty of those things still out there. If you want to know more you can email me at carolinatinpan@yahoo.com or go to www.49ermike.com or www.gpaa.com or www.goldgold.com..We recreational miners are cleaning up the rivers and we are conservationists too. Our hobby does not harm the environment and creates fish habitat. The rivers with the most mining activities are the same rivers with the highest populations of fish. Its because of our cobble piles that become homes for small fish and prey to lay eggs in and the population explodes.That bumper sticker is a tongue in cheek joke. We are all a great bunch of guys.
2006-10-26 03:24:47 · answer #2 · answered by carolinatinpan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we'll get to that point for most gems and minerals. A lot of times known gem and mineral deposites aren't mined because it simply isn't feasable to do it on a large scale, or the exctraction becomes more costly than the worth of the material. For example, at the Calico Ghost town in the Mojave desert, the hills are full of silver ore and were mined extensively in the 1800's. The town eventually died but the silver ore is still very abundant. The problem is, it costs more to extact the silver than the silver is worth. As for the gold, most geologists will tell you California is still full of it but the terrain in many gold bearing areas is rough, not to mention, protected land.
2006-10-25 21:19:01 · answer #3 · answered by minuteblue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, thats not entirely true. Gold is easily reprossessed. We still use gold that was used thousands of years ago. As for gemstones i don't find that true either because people hand them down from generation to generation. Marble, you have a point.
2006-10-25 15:24:16 · answer #4 · answered by joshjones007 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course people in the future will be able to find gold & gemstones and marble in their natural state...
2006-10-25 17:06:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is sad. People should get to see and find gold, gemstones, and marble in the future.
2006-10-25 15:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by sissy 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sparklies are the least of our concern. There simply isnt enough resources on this planet to support the unprecedented growth of the human population, if we continue down this path we will exceed the threshold for sustainability and we will kill ourselves. For the love of god learn to use condoms.
2006-10-25 15:36:30 · answer #7 · answered by Ben 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah, as new technologies develop old sites will be revisited and remined with even more amazing results. I seriously doubt we've even scratched the surface when it comes to Earth Sciences.
2006-10-25 15:42:39 · answer #8 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What? Just because it's harvested means there's no more? No one is eating the gems we've found so far, so they will still be around.
2006-10-25 15:22:13 · answer #9 · answered by Marvinator 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
But it will be happy for the people in the future if we find a cure for cancer and other diseases. I guess it evens out.
2006-10-25 15:50:46 · answer #10 · answered by greeneyes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋