5 ms·

Is this really true? All those objects are fairly low tech, between the lifetime of a torch or calculator which is way longer than the one of an iphone and the

by boudin 5y ago

Is this really true? All those objects are fairly low tech, between the lifetime of a torch or calculator which is way longer than the one of an iphone and the simpler production process behind it, I wouldn't be surprised that producing an iphone requires more materials, generates more defects for one working device and requires an way more complex supply chain.

toto444 5y ago
This is discussed at length here : https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... and in the comments.
mmarq 5y ago
The very fact that my iPhone is lighter than my father’s calculator, should say something at least about raw materials.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  Similarly, my bicycle is lighter than my father's horse. Mass alone does not tell the whole story.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    And it also requires much less energy and maintenance to be produced and operated. Growth.
  - taneq 5y ago
    I'm actually curious, which one DOES take more resources all up? And what do you count as a resource? ie. the bicycle would take far more coal and iron ore (neither of which the horse needs) but the horse would use up far more water and otherwise edible grains.
    - boudin 5y ago
      There's actually more to take into account to push the subject a lot. The human on a bicycle also needs food and water to move the bicycle. Which is the more efficient at converting those resources into movement and in which scenario ?
    - i_am_proteus 5y ago
      The horse also generates more power than a human on a bicycle. The horse does not need improved roads the way most bicycles do, and is more reliable off road than most mountain bikes. Lots of food for thought here.
      - goatlover 5y ago
        A horse also needs food and shelter and they poop. An early argument in favor of cars over horses were that cars didn’t leave fecal matter everywhere in cities.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      An electric bike does not need to be fed with crops.
- dariosalvi78 5y ago
  well, have you considered how much material is used for producing that iPhone? have you got an idea of how much water is used for that tshirt you probably wearing right now?
  - mmarq 5y ago
    Lots of material would go into the production of all the tools it replaces. A programmable calculator, a mobile phone a GameBoy, a music player, my mother’s cook books, etc… combined will likely require more raw materials.
- boudin 5y ago
  First, that might just mean that you live at a higher altitude than your father, but I guess you meant mass. Then, it might just mean that your father's calculator use material of higher density. More seriously. when building something, there's a lot more material than what comes in the final product: - the scrap generated by the by the manufacturing process. The more elements, the more it's going to be. - the number of defects, for every parts of the device (for some parts it will be extremely low, for some it would be quite higher, but there's always some). Granted, some defects can be re-purposed, but it's not always the case - The raw materials to actually manufacture (like water) - The average number of repairs required over a lifetime (replacing the screen on a iphone is quite frequent) - The materials required to build the supply chain that can build such devices. - The materials required to generate the energy required to build the factories. And there's plenty of other things to take into account. In the end it's not about the volume of raw material as such, that doesn't mean much as it is. It's for each material, to take into consideration if it's renewable, what's the impact of extracting it and many other questions.
  - mmarq 5y ago
    I think it’s undeniable that iPhone uses less materials than all the objects it replaces combined, even if it consumes more materials and pollutes more than a 1970s programmable calculator (and I’m not too sure about that), it certainly requires less resources than a calculator plus a mobile phone plus a stereo plus blablabla
    - boudin 5y ago
      It's not undeniable at all, you made an assertion without any base. This is far from being obvious, there's way too much things to take into consideration to be able to make such claim out of thin air.

by boudin 5y ago

toto444 5y ago

This is discussed at length here : https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... and in the comments.

mmarq 5y ago

The very fact that my iPhone is lighter than my father’s calculator, should say something at least about raw materials.

i_am_proteus 5y ago
Similarly, my bicycle is lighter than my father's horse. Mass alone does not tell the whole story.
- mmarq 5y ago
  And it also requires much less energy and maintenance to be produced and operated. Growth.
- taneq 5y ago
  I'm actually curious, which one DOES take more resources all up? And what do you count as a resource? ie. the bicycle would take far more coal and iron ore (neither of which the horse needs) but the horse would use up far more water and otherwise edible grains.
  - boudin 5y ago
    There's actually more to take into account to push the subject a lot. The human on a bicycle also needs food and water to move the bicycle. Which is the more efficient at converting those resources into movement and in which scenario ?
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    The horse also generates more power than a human on a bicycle. The horse does not need improved roads the way most bicycles do, and is more reliable off road than most mountain bikes. Lots of food for thought here.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      A horse also needs food and shelter and they poop. An early argument in favor of cars over horses were that cars didn’t leave fecal matter everywhere in cities.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    An electric bike does not need to be fed with crops.
dariosalvi78 5y ago
well, have you considered how much material is used for producing that iPhone? have you got an idea of how much water is used for that tshirt you probably wearing right now?
- mmarq 5y ago
  Lots of material would go into the production of all the tools it replaces. A programmable calculator, a mobile phone a GameBoy, a music player, my mother’s cook books, etc… combined will likely require more raw materials.
boudin 5y ago
First, that might just mean that you live at a higher altitude than your father, but I guess you meant mass. Then, it might just mean that your father's calculator use material of higher density. More seriously. when building something, there's a lot more material than what comes in the final product: - the scrap generated by the by the manufacturing process. The more elements, the more it's going to be. - the number of defects, for every parts of the device (for some parts it will be extremely low, for some it would be quite higher, but there's always some). Granted, some defects can be re-purposed, but it's not always the case - The raw materials to actually manufacture (like water) - The average number of repairs required over a lifetime (replacing the screen on a iphone is quite frequent) - The materials required to build the supply chain that can build such devices. - The materials required to generate the energy required to build the factories. And there's plenty of other things to take into account. In the end it's not about the volume of raw material as such, that doesn't mean much as it is. It's for each material, to take into consideration if it's renewable, what's the impact of extracting it and many other questions.
- mmarq 5y ago
  I think it’s undeniable that iPhone uses less materials than all the objects it replaces combined, even if it consumes more materials and pollutes more than a 1970s programmable calculator (and I’m not too sure about that), it certainly requires less resources than a calculator plus a mobile phone plus a stereo plus blablabla
  - boudin 5y ago
    It's not undeniable at all, you made an assertion without any base. This is far from being obvious, there's way too much things to take into consideration to be able to make such claim out of thin air.