Can the resources involved whether they are nonliving living or human be defined as renewable or nonrenewable in relation to the pace scale and character of development?

Answer 1

Yes, that can be done. When we decide whether a resource is renewable or not, that does actually depend upon the rate at which that resource is consumed. Fresh water is a renewable resource in the sense that there is a continuing supply of fresh water, in the form of rain. However it is certainly possible to consume fresh water faster than the rain can replenish it, in which case fresh water is not entirely renewable, and it can still become exhausted (which, of course, has happened in many parts of the world). No resource is completely unlimited. We don't expect to run out of breathable air, yet, it is possible (at least in theory) to have a planetary population so large that the existing green plant life would not be sufficient to replenish the oxygen supply, which would then not be as renewable as it used to be. I can imagine, in principle, that in such a ridiculously overpopulated world, it could become necessary to use electrolysis to manufacture oxygen from water, to make sure we have enough to breathe. Of course, in such a situation we would also have a severe problem getting enough food to eat. Perhaps hunger would get to us before we rain out of oxygen. Sunlight is the ultimate renewable resource, because it is so plentiful and so reliable. But since there is no upper limit to the power consumption of the human race, it is possible that we could capture and utilize all the available sunlight and still not have enough for our needs. I don't really expect that to happen, but it is possible in theory.