It's only limited if you don't have enough innovation to make renewable methods more affordable.
The renewable arent as reliable, as explained before. Solar and wind power cost a lot to be done on large scale. Besides, it takes resource saving to make the best use out of renewable ones as well, something you already admitted capitalism doesnt do.
Even then, it's easier to get more utility total by making the system more efficient. Fuel rationing doesn't get you more utility overall, it just stretches it thinner and lowers living standards now.
Fuel rationing means fuel is distributed properly over time, for example on important tasks only, such as for military or food production. It is better to use 99% less fuel than simply improve efficiency by 35%. You would need to improve efficiency by making cars use 99.99% less fuel to just become equal to planned economy in resource saving.
Meaning it doesn't get much utility from fuel, nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future. Even if North Korea's current standard of living is sustainable, it's a very low one.
The argument is not about current standard of living, but about saving resources. Its an equal of saying that you are richer because you will use more wealth sooner and run out of it faster. Thus, the argument is about which system makes better use of resources, and as we can clearly see, capitalism depletes finite resources much much faster. Even if Capitalism increases standard of living, it does so at great expense of finite resources and does not distribute them according to priority, but according to customer's demands and it serves richer customers first. So not only does capitalism depletes finite resources faster, but it does not distribute them in a correct priority. Even if we take survival of society or military competition, it makes no sense to race to deplete fuel as fast as possible. For both military and survival of society, it is better if fuel is distributed so it lasts much longer.
Nuclear energy is not unlimited, and accidents which happen from it put the country at risk. This is especially so in war zones or in case of attacks on a country. Nuclear accident makes areas unusable for decades.
That's a military advancement which doesn't do much to increase the standard of living. (The US outperforms them on military anyway.)
Your original argument was that Socialism has no advancements, but as we can see, ICBM was an important advancement made by Soviet Union. Besides, before Socialism, Russia was backwards irrelevant country. Its the Socialism which turned it into a superpower.
That relies on a free market that can respond to tax incentives in an efficient way.
It relies on government intervention first. If it was up to free market alone, fuel would be used much more and solar panels would be much more expensive.
Cherry picking would be taking one data point, but I'm taking a wide range of data points (50 years) and picking the most recent 50 years to get a gist of what the trend is like under the current rate of advancement.
Cherry picking means taking one and ignoring the rest. You are taking 50 years but ignoring 70 years. Its a fact that USA uses more resources now per capita than it did in 1960.
I was responding to your claim that capitalist countries "consume more now so you have less later" by showing that the US is able to reduce the amount consumed per person.
USA didnt reduce the amount consumed per person when you account for last 70 years, but even if it did, it would be a strawman of my argument. It doesnt matter if you even reduce consumption by 10% over 50 years, because you are still consuming far more per capita than a planned economy, thus you will have less later while planned economy distributes resources more evenly over time. It is like in the given example at start. Even if you reduce eating chocolate from 4 per day to 3 per day, that is still much more than 1 per day, and thus such resource will last shorter than it would on 1 chocolate per day system.
There's not much value to saving finite resources if you can't use them to improve the country's quality of life. And capitalism has increased the amount of viable resources, since solar and nuclear power were less viable hundreds of years ago.
Actually, there is. First, the military can only run on fuel. Nuclear tanks and planes, or tanks and planes which run on electricity are nonsense which cannot be made use of in war. Since known oil sources will run out in 30 or 40 years
(Mostly thanks to capitalist's race to deplete them, and this is even when hoping that fuel consumption in the world wont increase anymore like it did so far. Under North Korean system, the same fuel resources would last for over 1000 more years), it makes sense to save fuel for the military. It doesnt make sense to waste fuel on a mass scale, because it means your military will run out of fuel, and it makes transitioning to other forms of energy more difficult, because even in USA you would have to replace over a hundred million fuel cars with electric cars, which places even greater drain on resources. So not only does Socialism make fuel reserves last much longer and its military being in better position as a result, but even renewable energies are better used in socialism where they are distributed for farming and military production first and not controlled by the wealthy. Simply said, in Capitalism, the wealthy decide how to distribute resources, and saving resources is not something they did so far.
