3 ms·

As far as I know, the Earth's surface cannot meet humanity's current need for hydrocarbons, polymers or building materials. Biomass production is limited by sun

As far as I know, the Earth's surface cannot meet humanity's current need for hydrocarbons, polymers or building materials. Biomass production is limited by sun energy and most importantly phosphorus and nitrogen cycles. Even hundred of years ago, people were already exhausting regenerative capacities and back then there were only around half a billion humans living on all this planet. Petrol chemistry and mineral exploitation saved Earth's ecosphere short term. But obviously that can't last forever. It's nice to have functional carbon sinks and all, but we will never replace even the majority of petrol, metallic and mineral based production of today with biomass derived alternatives. The surface and geological cycles cannot support that. And food is priority. If phosphorus rock is gone, we're fucked for good. We need to cut down.

vimy 5y ago
We need to mine in space.
- bhhaskin 5y ago
  This. If we want to continue human progress then space is really the only option.
  - account_b 5y ago
    No, that's still ignorant of ecological processes, I think. We need to adapt culturally/economically. What do you think happens, if we continue as we do, but assume "infinte" ressourses? You would still exhaust regenerative/reparative capacities, accumulate chemical byproducts and waste - shift balances. See nitrification of water bodies. The core problem is our lazyness to recapture uncompressed former dense resources; to operate closed cycle. And well, I have my doubts we can establish the extend of space exploitation to meet our current e.g. global phosphorus needs within the next 30 years. Is phosphate rock even plenty around in asteroids?
  - mikeg8 5y ago
    Really, the only option? You must be joking.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Good luck finding an oil rich asteroid. Or an asteroid with lush virgin hardwood forests. As far as I know there isn't a shortage of iron ore. This hardened wood is solving a problem that we don't have yet.
  - account_b 5y ago
    AFAIK it does solve a problem with steel, tho: Energy expenditure of production. You cannot make steel with heat generated electrically. At least not directly. Energy dense fossil hydrocarbons are powering furnaces today. You may replace that with generated hydrogen, but I am not sure the math checks out on a global scale.
  - mikeg8 5y ago
    I believe one of the problems it solves is that steel has a tendency to erode over time. Hence major infrastructure failures. If structural elements can be made to the same strength as steel, using HW, which will not erode at the same pace of steel, than the expected lifetime of a structure increases and that is solving a real problem.
    - jandrese 5y ago
      Wood is also well known for degrading over time. Their process may prevent some or all of that, but it has yet to be shown from what I've seen.
- goohle 5y ago
  First, we need to marsoform Terra to make mining in space cheaper than mining at Earth.
jnmandal 5y ago
This is pretty clear to me too. We survive on stored energy borrowed from the past. Energy and growth are basically finite. We do need to cut down. We also need to develop tech (weather technique or technology) to reconstitute waste and refuse into the inputs for our food, buildings, transportation, etc.
- account_b 5y ago
  > We survive on stored energy borrowed from the past. It's worse than that: We fully rely on borrowed time! Natural geological cycles to restore surface phosphorus span many thousands of years. Our current agriculture (food production) critically depends on mineral phosphorus, which may be exhausted in just four or five decades. And we retain none of that, but flush our soils into the oceans (partially through the toilet, literally). No phosphorus, no food. I wish everybody knew about peak phosphorus. (It's also a geopolitical near future issue as almost all phosphate rock is located in Morocco...) > We also need to develop tech (weather technique or technology) to reconstitute waste and refuse into the inputs for our food, buildings, transportation, etc. Yes! We also need to collect and recycle human and livestock feces and urine to prevent mineral loss. Those cannot leak from the ecosystems anymore - madness! Honestly, I think it's possible humanity will barely not make it, comically, because no one wants to lobby for collecting people's shit, while everything else goes full Star Trek.
  - korantu 5y ago
    Does it also mean that using wood at industrial scale is bad idea? Trees need phosphorus too
    - account_b 5y ago
      I can only speculate. I think wood itself contains little phosphorus, compared to other parts of the plant. The inner rings of a tree are dead cells, a formerly living tissue, which condensed to cellulose and lignin. I assume the plant will not have phosphorus left there substantially. Phosphorus is needed to make ADP and DNA, by all living things, and is used in photosynthesis by plants, too. Quite useless in the middle of the dead wood zone. In woody plants, only the outer layers and leaves are living cells. If you leave those in the forest to rot, you retain some phosphorus. You could also burn furniture after a century of use for energy and then bring the ash back into the forest to close the cycle, I guess. But that's requires non-toxic ashes - compatible paints and glues, no heavy metal agents and so on. Either way, you are in competition with agriculture land use for food production. And bio fuels. And bio polymers. And bio... You get the idea. Tho, if I had to guess, I would say wood probably is not the worst in terms of phosphorus leakage.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
engineer_22 5y ago
->We need to cut down. A potential alternative survival strategy is to develop your country as fast as possible. Develop whatever technology will be necessary to win a potential future war fought over the scarcest resources. This development oriented strategy will probably consume a lot of resources, but survival is worth taking risks for.
dirtyid 5y ago
Do you have any recommended readings or search terms to explore this subject?

vimy 5y ago

We need to mine in space.

bhhaskin 5y ago
This. If we want to continue human progress then space is really the only option.
- account_b 5y ago
  No, that's still ignorant of ecological processes, I think. We need to adapt culturally/economically. What do you think happens, if we continue as we do, but assume "infinte" ressourses? You would still exhaust regenerative/reparative capacities, accumulate chemical byproducts and waste - shift balances. See nitrification of water bodies. The core problem is our lazyness to recapture uncompressed former dense resources; to operate closed cycle. And well, I have my doubts we can establish the extend of space exploitation to meet our current e.g. global phosphorus needs within the next 30 years. Is phosphate rock even plenty around in asteroids?
- mikeg8 5y ago
  Really, the only option? You must be joking.
jandrese 5y ago
Good luck finding an oil rich asteroid. Or an asteroid with lush virgin hardwood forests. As far as I know there isn't a shortage of iron ore. This hardened wood is solving a problem that we don't have yet.
- account_b 5y ago
  AFAIK it does solve a problem with steel, tho: Energy expenditure of production. You cannot make steel with heat generated electrically. At least not directly. Energy dense fossil hydrocarbons are powering furnaces today. You may replace that with generated hydrogen, but I am not sure the math checks out on a global scale.
- mikeg8 5y ago
  I believe one of the problems it solves is that steel has a tendency to erode over time. Hence major infrastructure failures. If structural elements can be made to the same strength as steel, using HW, which will not erode at the same pace of steel, than the expected lifetime of a structure increases and that is solving a real problem.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    Wood is also well known for degrading over time. Their process may prevent some or all of that, but it has yet to be shown from what I've seen.
goohle 5y ago
First, we need to marsoform Terra to make mining in space cheaper than mining at Earth.

jnmandal 5y ago

This is pretty clear to me too. We survive on stored energy borrowed from the past. Energy and growth are basically finite. We do need to cut down. We also need to develop tech (weather technique or technology) to reconstitute waste and refuse into the inputs for our food, buildings, transportation, etc.

account_b 5y ago
> We survive on stored energy borrowed from the past. It's worse than that: We fully rely on borrowed time! Natural geological cycles to restore surface phosphorus span many thousands of years. Our current agriculture (food production) critically depends on mineral phosphorus, which may be exhausted in just four or five decades. And we retain none of that, but flush our soils into the oceans (partially through the toilet, literally). No phosphorus, no food. I wish everybody knew about peak phosphorus. (It's also a geopolitical near future issue as almost all phosphate rock is located in Morocco...) > We also need to develop tech (weather technique or technology) to reconstitute waste and refuse into the inputs for our food, buildings, transportation, etc. Yes! We also need to collect and recycle human and livestock feces and urine to prevent mineral loss. Those cannot leak from the ecosystems anymore - madness! Honestly, I think it's possible humanity will barely not make it, comically, because no one wants to lobby for collecting people's shit, while everything else goes full Star Trek.
- korantu 5y ago
  Does it also mean that using wood at industrial scale is bad idea? Trees need phosphorus too
  - account_b 5y ago
    I can only speculate. I think wood itself contains little phosphorus, compared to other parts of the plant. The inner rings of a tree are dead cells, a formerly living tissue, which condensed to cellulose and lignin. I assume the plant will not have phosphorus left there substantially. Phosphorus is needed to make ADP and DNA, by all living things, and is used in photosynthesis by plants, too. Quite useless in the middle of the dead wood zone. In woody plants, only the outer layers and leaves are living cells. If you leave those in the forest to rot, you retain some phosphorus. You could also burn furniture after a century of use for energy and then bring the ash back into the forest to close the cycle, I guess. But that's requires non-toxic ashes - compatible paints and glues, no heavy metal agents and so on. Either way, you are in competition with agriculture land use for food production. And bio fuels. And bio polymers. And bio... You get the idea. Tho, if I had to guess, I would say wood probably is not the worst in terms of phosphorus leakage.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

engineer_22 5y ago

->We need to cut down. A potential alternative survival strategy is to develop your country as fast as possible. Develop whatever technology will be necessary to win a potential future war fought over the scarcest resources. This development oriented strategy will probably consume a lot of resources, but survival is worth taking risks for.

dirtyid 5y ago

Do you have any recommended readings or search terms to explore this subject?