4 ms·

> If you think an iPhone requires less raw materials to make than a torch, please go ahead and hand-sculpt one from raw sand. What a silly assertion. The mere

> If you think an iPhone requires less raw materials to make than a torch, please go ahead and hand-sculpt one from raw sand. What a silly assertion. The mere fact you can't create something easily does not mean it does not necessitate less resources to build. The support system an supply chain is huge, but the resources it uses could be quite small if you divide by the number of units produced. Even so, there are many tools that a smartphone replaces that would have needed in the past a full product just to do a single thing. It can replace a PC, a game console, a tv, a flashlight, a calculator, tons of books, measuring instruments, keys. Many many things that have now moved into one small device. Maybe the resources for a torch are not more than for a iPhone, but adding all the functions it fills, surely, it is more resource efficient than the past alternatives.

Applejinx 5y ago
Your latter point is good. That kind of consolidation of purpose is really handy, indeed I think it's the future of resource management. We can work out how to efficiently use these things. Former point? No. Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to smelt aluminum, or form a CPU-ready silicon wafer? Wood for torches grows out of the ground. You don't seem to have any idea of supply chain infrastructure, and it matters. There's a fairly close mapping between the amount of infrastructure involved, and the cost of the thing (Veblen goods aside). You can buy a flammable stick fairly cheaply, but buying a smartphone really does not wind up being the cost of the raw materials or even close… and this is because you're not looking at the infrastructure costs of producing the final result. Sorry, you're way off base. Smart technological stuff is really cool in its own right, but it's mind-bogglingly wasteful by 'degrowth' standards.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Follow up, since I don't think I defined this clearly enough: How many torches do you have to burn, to repeatedly melt, refine, cast, machine etc. just the aluminum alone from your aluminum-cased device?
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    Let's do the math. Embodied energy for aluminum is apparently at 211 GJ per tonne[1] whereas wood has a caloric value of 19.2 GJ/tonne dry matter [2], but let's say our wood has 50% moisture -> 9.6GJ/tonne => embodied energy at about 1/22 ratio An iPhone 12 has 164 g, of which 24% is aluminum. [4] => ~39.36g of aluminum in one. Ergo, your, presumably wood torch, would have to weigh 865g in order to be able to have the same embodied energy as an iPhone. Of course, this is highly simplified and silly and full of wonky napkin math, but at least I expect we're in the same order of magnitude range for the estimation. Regardless, doing the math, it is lower than I expected. Also, the greatest issue I took with your claim that "If you think an iPhone requires less raw materials to make than a torch, please go ahead and hand-sculpt one from raw sand." -> that sentence makes no sense and fails to prove your point. Maybe the point is correct, but it is NOT proven in any way by that sentence. I don't even have a stance on the torch/iPhone comparison (although the effort I expended on the napkin math might show otherwise, that was just a fun little exercise for me) And the wider point is that inovation might be better for the environment than lack of innovation. I am convinced that if we could move to a sustainable world if everything we bought would be higher quality and had more thought in it, abeit more expensive. The consolidation of purpose, as you nicely phrased it is one of the critical components that work for this "techstenance". And the stronger point, related to the iPhone specifically is that [1] https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-aluminium-7245 https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-aluminium-7245 [2] http://www.woodenergy.ie/frequentlyaskedquestions/ http://www.woodenergy.ie/frequentlyaskedquestions/ [3] https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12-10509.php https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12-10509.php [4] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-metal-in-an-iphone-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-metal-in-an-iphone-...

Applejinx 5y ago

Your latter point is good. That kind of consolidation of purpose is really handy, indeed I think it's the future of resource management. We can work out how to efficiently use these things. Former point? No. Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to smelt aluminum, or form a CPU-ready silicon wafer? Wood for torches grows out of the ground. You don't seem to have any idea of supply chain infrastructure, and it matters. There's a fairly close mapping between the amount of infrastructure involved, and the cost of the thing (Veblen goods aside). You can buy a flammable stick fairly cheaply, but buying a smartphone really does not wind up being the cost of the raw materials or even close… and this is because you're not looking at the infrastructure costs of producing the final result. Sorry, you're way off base. Smart technological stuff is really cool in its own right, but it's mind-bogglingly wasteful by 'degrowth' standards.

Applejinx 5y ago
Follow up, since I don't think I defined this clearly enough: How many torches do you have to burn, to repeatedly melt, refine, cast, machine etc. just the aluminum alone from your aluminum-cased device?
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Let's do the math. Embodied energy for aluminum is apparently at 211 GJ per tonne[1] whereas wood has a caloric value of 19.2 GJ/tonne dry matter [2], but let's say our wood has 50% moisture -> 9.6GJ/tonne => embodied energy at about 1/22 ratio An iPhone 12 has 164 g, of which 24% is aluminum. [4] => ~39.36g of aluminum in one. Ergo, your, presumably wood torch, would have to weigh 865g in order to be able to have the same embodied energy as an iPhone. Of course, this is highly simplified and silly and full of wonky napkin math, but at least I expect we're in the same order of magnitude range for the estimation. Regardless, doing the math, it is lower than I expected. Also, the greatest issue I took with your claim that "If you think an iPhone requires less raw materials to make than a torch, please go ahead and hand-sculpt one from raw sand." -> that sentence makes no sense and fails to prove your point. Maybe the point is correct, but it is NOT proven in any way by that sentence. I don't even have a stance on the torch/iPhone comparison (although the effort I expended on the napkin math might show otherwise, that was just a fun little exercise for me) And the wider point is that inovation might be better for the environment than lack of innovation. I am convinced that if we could move to a sustainable world if everything we bought would be higher quality and had more thought in it, abeit more expensive. The consolidation of purpose, as you nicely phrased it is one of the critical components that work for this "techstenance". And the stronger point, related to the iPhone specifically is that [1] https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-aluminium-7245 https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-aluminium-7245 [2] http://www.woodenergy.ie/frequentlyaskedquestions/ http://www.woodenergy.ie/frequentlyaskedquestions/ [3] https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12-10509.php https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12-10509.php [4] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-metal-in-an-iphone-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-metal-in-an-iphone-...