3 ms·
I assume you mean storage space. There you run into the same problem if you scale the system. The proof still needs scarcity in whatever storage is made of. Fo
by lofi_lory 5y ago
I assume you mean storage space. There you run into the same problem if you scale the system. The proof still needs scarcity in whatever storage is made of.
For many natural resources, the local concentration is key to viability. See phosphorus, or helium depletion. Once the reserves are gone, we cannot maintain our scale of production, as alternative extraction usually is too energy intensive to scale. Please consider this on an interdependent scope, where it all comes down to burning through the geological work of millennia as the fundamental ressource. 500 years ago, people were already hitting the limits of ecological sustainability where they settled and back then all of earth was home to something like 500 million people.
Maintaining just the food production for 7 billion humans is gonna be an overbearing challenge the next years. Anarchocapitalist delusions have no future.
- aeternum 5y agoHelium is the second most abundant element, we just need to go to space, plenty of resources there. Every year we delay is another year worth of black holes swallowing up entire galaxies worth or resources.
- lofi_lory 5y agoThat's my point. Phosphorus is also plenty around. Yet it's practically unobtainable. We depend on phosphorus rock for our food production. There is no way around it.
- CyberDildonics 5y agoThe person you replied to mentioned some random project no one has heard of, what are you talking about here? You went on a rant that started barely connected and ended up talking about food production for 7 billion people (which is currently happening by the way since there are about 7 billion on earth).