30年来人们对矿产品长期可供性一直争论不休。争论原因有三个 ,一是人们在评估这一风险时采用了两种截然不同的模式 ,致使结论大相径庭 ;二是不确定因素太多 ,其中最重要的是左右矿产品价格的未来矿产品供求变化的不确定性 ;三是目前矿产品价格反映的仅是生产商支付的社会成本 ,如果价格反映的是生产和使用矿产品的全部社会成本 ,人们将无法预知价格上涨幅度以及价格随时间变化的趋势。本文对这三个原因进行了分析。早在两个世纪前 ,托马斯·马尔萨斯、大卫·里查德等古典经济学家就开始了对自然资源充足与否的讨论。上世纪 70年代初《增长的极限》一书的出版又引发了新一轮讨论 ,该书用复杂的计算机仿真模型推导出到本世纪中叶 ,矿产资源耗竭会导致发达国家高生活水平崩溃。时至今日 ,就书中方法和结论的讨论依然激烈 ,有两派观点 ,一派是以地质学家和其他科学家为代表的悲观者 ,他们担心矿产资源耗竭特别是石油资源的耗竭问题 ,而另一派则是以经济学家为代表的乐观者 ,他们认为不存在资源耗竭的威胁。几十年过去了 ,争论的性质也在悄然变化 ,悲观者更多地关注与矿产品生产和利用相关的环境和其他外部成本 ,而较少关注资源的实际可供性。本文仅对过去几十年来两派不断相争的三点原因进行分析 For more than 30 years people have been arguing about the long-term availability of minerals. There are three reasons for the controversy. First, people adopt two very different models in assessing this risk, resulting in very different conclusions. Second, there are too many uncertainties. The most important of these are the changes in the supply and demand of future mineral products that affect the prices of mineral products Third, the current price of mineral products reflects only the social costs paid by producers. If the price reflects the total social cost of producing and using mineral products, people will not be able to predict the price increase and the price changes over time trend. This article analyzes these three reasons. As early as two centuries ago, classical economists such as Thomas Malthus and David Richards started discussions on the adequacy of natural resources. The publication of the book “The Limit of Growth” in the early 1970s sparked a new round of discussions. The book uses complex computer simulation models to deduce that the depletion of mineral resources will lead to the collapse of high standards of living in developed countries by the middle of this century. Today, discussions on methods and conclusions in the book are still fierce. There are two viewpoints. One group is a pessimist represented by geologists and other scientists who are concerned about the depletion of mineral resources, especially depletion of petroleum resources. One group is optimists represented by economists, they think there is no threat of resource depletion. Decades have passed and the nature of the debate is quietly changing, with pessimists focusing more on the environment and other external costs associated with the production and use of minerals, with less focus on the real availability of resources. This article only analyzes the three reasons why the two factions have continuously contested over the past few decades