4 ms·

In the context of today, yeah, there are tons of resources that we're quickly plundering our way through. The stories mentioned by Tom Scott and the parent art

In the context of today, yeah, there are tons of resources that we're quickly plundering our way through. The stories mentioned by Tom Scott and the parent article are tragic. But, big picture, nothing on this planet is "non-renewable". Sand, for example, can be manufactured. As can petroleum, coal, clean water, etc. In fact all those products can be produced from the waste of the materials they are replacing. We can chuck a bunch of plastics into a pressure chamber and, with enough energy, regenerate the original petroleum products. And that's the real crux: energy. We don't make our own sand and fossil fuels because it would cost too much in energy. But if we had more abundant sources of energy, the cost would go down, and more manufactured materials would become viable. Our crisis is not that we'll run out of resources. We have plenty. Our predicament is a lack of energy sources. We make up for it by consuming energy our planet has stored, in the form of fossil fuels and other so-called "non-renewables". The solution is to transition ourselves away from this handicap. We need to have more sustainable and abundant sources of energy. That pretty much amounts to solar, as there are no other truly sustainable sources of energy. So the real solution has not much to do with using less "non-renewables" and more to do with improving our abundance of solar energy.

Swizec 10y ago
This is like the old adage: if you have enough money to solve a problem then it's not a problem. If you have enough energy to make X, then you'll always have X. But usually you don't.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  Yes. I suppose my comment kind of comes off as saying something obvious. Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. It's like in a business. Don't focus on the cost centers, focus on the profit centers. How can we drive _more_ business rather than making the existing business more efficient. For a growing company that's usually the best advice. So why, as a growing species, are we optimizing our energy usage? Screw that. Let's get more energy! Let's blanket the land with solar panels so we have enough "fuck off" energy to do whatever the hell we want. In particular, enough energy to get into space and build a Dyson sphere so we can get even more energy. Imagine if we took all the money and time invested into optimizing energy usage, and instead had spent it on solar panels? It's all really counter to public opinion. Environmentally conscious people love their LED lights. I do too. But I also love optimizing systems, and optimizing systems is often not what's smart for a business.
  - justin66 10y ago
    > But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. The article mentions, among other things, thieves who steal sand, sell it, and bribe police to look the other way. While that's the state of affairs, lowering the cost of energy is beside the point.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      It is profitable for them to do that because the cost of energy is still too high.
      - justin66 10y ago
        No, it would be profitable for them regardless. You might live in some science fiction world where energy and automation were so abundant that manufacturing sand from something other material and shipping it in made economic sense. cost = energy-intensive manufacturing + lots of shipping It wouldn't prevent this crime because it's never going to be as cheap as going to the river and filling up a truck. cost = a short drive + a few bribes Technology is absolutely not the solution to everything (although sometimes it helps a lot).
  - inimino 10y ago
    > Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. It is obvious that we wouldn't have the same problems.
Gravityloss 10y ago
How about phosphor?
CalRobert 10y ago
How do you propose sourcing Helium? Barring a few atoms here and there from fusion experiments and H-bombs I don't know of a good source without leaving the planet.
- undersuit 10y ago
  If the natural production of Helium via radioactive decay in the Earth isn't enough, we can use create it from Boron and Lithium after using copious amounts of energy to accelerate protons into them, or for just Lithium, Deuterium.

Swizec 10y ago

This is like the old adage: if you have enough money to solve a problem then it's not a problem. If you have enough energy to make X, then you'll always have X. But usually you don't.

fpgaminer 10y ago
Yes. I suppose my comment kind of comes off as saying something obvious. Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. It's like in a business. Don't focus on the cost centers, focus on the profit centers. How can we drive _more_ business rather than making the existing business more efficient. For a growing company that's usually the best advice. So why, as a growing species, are we optimizing our energy usage? Screw that. Let's get more energy! Let's blanket the land with solar panels so we have enough "fuck off" energy to do whatever the hell we want. In particular, enough energy to get into space and build a Dyson sphere so we can get even more energy. Imagine if we took all the money and time invested into optimizing energy usage, and instead had spent it on solar panels? It's all really counter to public opinion. Environmentally conscious people love their LED lights. I do too. But I also love optimizing systems, and optimizing systems is often not what's smart for a business.
- justin66 10y ago
  > But really what I was trying to get at was that our focus, with respect to the environment, is perhaps in the wrong place. We focus so much on reducing use. Really our focus needs to be on how we can get _more_ energy. The article mentions, among other things, thieves who steal sand, sell it, and bribe police to look the other way. While that's the state of affairs, lowering the cost of energy is beside the point.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    It is profitable for them to do that because the cost of energy is still too high.
    - justin66 10y ago
      No, it would be profitable for them regardless. You might live in some science fiction world where energy and automation were so abundant that manufacturing sand from something other material and shipping it in made economic sense. cost = energy-intensive manufacturing + lots of shipping It wouldn't prevent this crime because it's never going to be as cheap as going to the river and filling up a truck. cost = a short drive + a few bribes Technology is absolutely not the solution to everything (although sometimes it helps a lot).
- inimino 10y ago
  > Obviously if we had infinite energy we wouldn't have any problems. It is obvious that we wouldn't have the same problems.

Gravityloss 10y ago

How about phosphor?

CalRobert 10y ago

How do you propose sourcing Helium? Barring a few atoms here and there from fusion experiments and H-bombs I don't know of a good source without leaving the planet.

undersuit 10y ago
If the natural production of Helium via radioactive decay in the Earth isn't enough, we can use create it from Boron and Lithium after using copious amounts of energy to accelerate protons into them, or for just Lithium, Deuterium.