In direct opposition to the traditional Malthusian view, Julian Simon made the following remark: "Incredible as it may seem at first, the term 'finite' is not only inappropriate but downright misleading in the context of natural resources, from both the practical and the philosophical points of views. As with so many of the important arguments in this world, this one is just semantic."

Do you think the concept of "finite" within the context of natural resource availability is a sematic argument and, as such, conveys no practical value? Defend your position.