4 ms·

Totally pointless article. Main ingredients of modern life are required to produce the cake as it is now. But nowhere in history we have seen a faster developme

Totally pointless article. Main ingredients of modern life are required to produce the cake as it is now. But nowhere in history we have seen a faster developments in materials science, where Italy leads the way in bioplastics and many more materials are being born everyday like coated insulating paper. So ofc now we can't but use ammonia cement and steel, and that's about to change. The current population has reached 8 billions because of these materials, sure, but we cannot say "impossible" when we think about the future. It was "impossible" to be efficient remotely in 2020, and we've been, without any sort of preparation. When fossil fuels will be scarce, or climate change will impose drastic laws against people's freedom, it WILL be possible and mandatory to change. We've been to the Moon qnd back in 1969, and there is no way we can say it's "impossible" to find solutions in 2022

dredmorbius 4y ago
Smil has devoted a half-century to study of this question, and is a widely-respected expert across the spectrum. Dismissing his writing as "totally pointless" seems rather hasty. What evidence would you have to support that assessment? Other than wishful thinking and appeal to consequences.
- lordkrandel 4y ago
  I don't say that he has no right to think that. But it boils down to what conception of the world you have. If we think as "modern life" as dependant on steel based bridges, farming grass to get meat, yeah it will probably be impossible. But that's as conservative as thinking that we are no more Italians if we are European. And it's not. So while he spends 50 years on thinking why some materials are relevant, there are other people spending their lives with a more open mind, thinking how we can adapt and change. And this doesn't change the fact that I read an article full of useless information about processes which will have to change, with no sort of effect on my daily life or routine. So while I'm not critiquing an essayer for doing his job, I still find it rather pointless to have such an article on Time. We all know that if processes require finite resources, there will be problems. So?
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Smil's longer argument (and it's at least book length, arguably multi-book length as he's written about 40 covering aspects of the topic) is that the scale and dependencies of the modern world would be difficult to substitute for. We got here largely by moving off a sustainable track. Humanity used to live lagely sustainably. Unfortunately for those who'd like to return to that state, we've also increased total numbers, and per-capita wealth, far beyond the levels the sustainable track sufficed for. Reversion would proabably be traumatic. That said: most of the transformation is less than a century old, and substantial portions of the world (China, India, Africa) have joined the industrialised world largely in the past 50--75 years. So time-wise we're not so far from it. In terms of carrying capacity and the requirements for maintaining present state without catastrophic collapse, the distance seems much greater. To that extent I somewhat disagree with Smil's relative confidence, though I'll note he's far more informed than I am on the overall state of the situation.
    - lordkrandel 4y ago
      So it's hard to change? You don't say... Do we have any choice about it? No.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Strictly speaking, something can be simultaneously necessary for survival and yet still impossible. While I am optimistic about getting us off fossil fuels, if it turns out they are actually necessary for even one thing, then that thing, whatever it is, logically cannot be in the long-term future of humanity.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        Agreed very nearly in full. Though on something being obligately dependent on some input or process: if that is one of a very small number of uses and both supply and consequence effects can be managed (e.g., we won't run out of supply in any conceivably meaningful timeframe and we can manage consequences), that usage might persist. Limiting petroleum usage to material feedstocks could be tolerable if: - That occurs at rates such that exhaustion isn't a meaningful risk. - Any environmental impacts, including but not limited to CO2 emissions, are compensated for. Those are themselves both steep requirements, but not utterly inconceivable. The pre-industrial utilisation of natural oil and tar seeps for uses such as lamp oil, sealing ships hulls, and the like, seem to me to have been at least reasonable. It wasn't until we started shipping the material in bulk within and between countries that major problems started emerging. That said: ice-core studies have detected atmospheric CO2 shifts and heavy metal contamination (mostly mercury and lead) dating to paeleolithic times (presumably from deforestation) and Roman mining activities during the Republic and Empire periods. Activities we think of as de minimus may in fact not be.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I didn't even read the article because the headline was so stupid and now it's this Smil guy again? How did he get this reputation for being smart when he's had so many dumb takes on energy? Has he accepted that EVs are viable yet? (edit: having now read the article, no he's still arguing that EVs are bad) Does he really not know that fossil fuels are not required for any of these things. Did he just intentionally lie about it? For what purpose? edit: He contradicts himself at the end of the article, so he knows the headline is false. Is this basically an ad for fossil fuels?
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    What specifically do you see as the contradiction in Smil's summary?
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      > The Modern World Can't Exist Without These Four Ingredients. They All Require Fossil Fuels And just in case someone points out that the headline may have been written by an editor: > Fossil fuels remain indispensable for producing all of these materials. But if you keep reading past the advertising copy about how great fossil fuels are. > Synthesis of ammonia and smelting of steel could both be based on hydrogen rather than on natural gas and coke. We know how to do that Well, that's not what your headline says. He does of course continue to try to sandbag this > —but it will take some time before we could produce hundreds of million tons of green hydrogen derived from the electrolysis of water by using wind or solar electricity (virtually all of today’s hydrogen is derived from natural gas and coal). The best forecast is that green hydrogen would supply 2% of the world’s energy consumption by 2030, far below the hundreds of million tons that will eventually be needed to decarbonize ammonia and steel production I can't tell if he's just writing poorly or being intentionally deceptive but the green hydrogen for ammonia and steel wouldn't be part of the global energy consumption, we'd use renewables to provide the electric power for the creation of it and use the green hydrogen as a chemical feedstock. We might also use some of it to generate electricity, but those are two separate things that he's probably intentionally trying to muddy.
- nemexis 4y ago
  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Appeal to authority is ultimately based on power or position. Expertise is not authority. It does rely on trust. And it isn't a blanket certification --- just because someone is an expert does not mean that they are never wrong (and I've indicated elsewhere in this thread some areas in which I disagree). However it does suggest that a casual dismissal based on lack of qualification, as was the case in this specific thread, wants for evidence itself. That is, the value of expertise (root word, experience) is a deep familiarity, knowledge, understanding, and trustworthiness in a specific field. One trusts an expert computer programmer, an expert doctor, an expert engineer, an expert pilot, an expert lawyer. Or, in this, case, an expert environmental scientist. I'd mentioned his credentials not as a blanket dismissal of some specific argument against the piece, or an element of it, but that the piece as a whole is "pointless". Smil's experience, knowledge, understanding, and track record strongly suggest otherwise. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority If you follow lordkrandel's other comments to this thread, you may find their own experiential basis, beginning from a clear reading of the article and articulation of their own argument, is lacking.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Smil has devoted a half-century to study of this question, and is a widely-respected expert across the spectrum. Dismissing his writing as "totally pointless" seems rather hasty. What evidence would you have to support that assessment? Other than wishful thinking and appeal to consequences.

lordkrandel 4y ago
I don't say that he has no right to think that. But it boils down to what conception of the world you have. If we think as "modern life" as dependant on steel based bridges, farming grass to get meat, yeah it will probably be impossible. But that's as conservative as thinking that we are no more Italians if we are European. And it's not. So while he spends 50 years on thinking why some materials are relevant, there are other people spending their lives with a more open mind, thinking how we can adapt and change. And this doesn't change the fact that I read an article full of useless information about processes which will have to change, with no sort of effect on my daily life or routine. So while I'm not critiquing an essayer for doing his job, I still find it rather pointless to have such an article on Time. We all know that if processes require finite resources, there will be problems. So?
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Smil's longer argument (and it's at least book length, arguably multi-book length as he's written about 40 covering aspects of the topic) is that the scale and dependencies of the modern world would be difficult to substitute for. We got here largely by moving off a sustainable track. Humanity used to live lagely sustainably. Unfortunately for those who'd like to return to that state, we've also increased total numbers, and per-capita wealth, far beyond the levels the sustainable track sufficed for. Reversion would proabably be traumatic. That said: most of the transformation is less than a century old, and substantial portions of the world (China, India, Africa) have joined the industrialised world largely in the past 50--75 years. So time-wise we're not so far from it. In terms of carrying capacity and the requirements for maintaining present state without catastrophic collapse, the distance seems much greater. To that extent I somewhat disagree with Smil's relative confidence, though I'll note he's far more informed than I am on the overall state of the situation.
  - lordkrandel 4y ago
    So it's hard to change? You don't say... Do we have any choice about it? No.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Strictly speaking, something can be simultaneously necessary for survival and yet still impossible. While I am optimistic about getting us off fossil fuels, if it turns out they are actually necessary for even one thing, then that thing, whatever it is, logically cannot be in the long-term future of humanity.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Agreed very nearly in full. Though on something being obligately dependent on some input or process: if that is one of a very small number of uses and both supply and consequence effects can be managed (e.g., we won't run out of supply in any conceivably meaningful timeframe and we can manage consequences), that usage might persist. Limiting petroleum usage to material feedstocks could be tolerable if: - That occurs at rates such that exhaustion isn't a meaningful risk. - Any environmental impacts, including but not limited to CO2 emissions, are compensated for. Those are themselves both steep requirements, but not utterly inconceivable. The pre-industrial utilisation of natural oil and tar seeps for uses such as lamp oil, sealing ships hulls, and the like, seem to me to have been at least reasonable. It wasn't until we started shipping the material in bulk within and between countries that major problems started emerging. That said: ice-core studies have detected atmospheric CO2 shifts and heavy metal contamination (mostly mercury and lead) dating to paeleolithic times (presumably from deforestation) and Roman mining activities during the Republic and Empire periods. Activities we think of as de minimus may in fact not be.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I didn't even read the article because the headline was so stupid and now it's this Smil guy again? How did he get this reputation for being smart when he's had so many dumb takes on energy? Has he accepted that EVs are viable yet? (edit: having now read the article, no he's still arguing that EVs are bad) Does he really not know that fossil fuels are not required for any of these things. Did he just intentionally lie about it? For what purpose? edit: He contradicts himself at the end of the article, so he knows the headline is false. Is this basically an ad for fossil fuels?
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  What specifically do you see as the contradiction in Smil's summary?
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > The Modern World Can't Exist Without These Four Ingredients. They All Require Fossil Fuels And just in case someone points out that the headline may have been written by an editor: > Fossil fuels remain indispensable for producing all of these materials. But if you keep reading past the advertising copy about how great fossil fuels are. > Synthesis of ammonia and smelting of steel could both be based on hydrogen rather than on natural gas and coke. We know how to do that Well, that's not what your headline says. He does of course continue to try to sandbag this > —but it will take some time before we could produce hundreds of million tons of green hydrogen derived from the electrolysis of water by using wind or solar electricity (virtually all of today’s hydrogen is derived from natural gas and coal). The best forecast is that green hydrogen would supply 2% of the world’s energy consumption by 2030, far below the hundreds of million tons that will eventually be needed to decarbonize ammonia and steel production I can't tell if he's just writing poorly or being intentionally deceptive but the green hydrogen for ammonia and steel wouldn't be part of the global energy consumption, we'd use renewables to provide the electric power for the creation of it and use the green hydrogen as a chemical feedstock. We might also use some of it to generate electricity, but those are two separate things that he's probably intentionally trying to muddy.
nemexis 4y ago
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Appeal to authority is ultimately based on power or position. Expertise is not authority. It does rely on trust. And it isn't a blanket certification --- just because someone is an expert does not mean that they are never wrong (and I've indicated elsewhere in this thread some areas in which I disagree). However it does suggest that a casual dismissal based on lack of qualification, as was the case in this specific thread, wants for evidence itself. That is, the value of expertise (root word, experience) is a deep familiarity, knowledge, understanding, and trustworthiness in a specific field. One trusts an expert computer programmer, an expert doctor, an expert engineer, an expert pilot, an expert lawyer. Or, in this, case, an expert environmental scientist. I'd mentioned his credentials not as a blanket dismissal of some specific argument against the piece, or an element of it, but that the piece as a whole is "pointless". Smil's experience, knowledge, understanding, and track record strongly suggest otherwise. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority If you follow lordkrandel's other comments to this thread, you may find their own experiential basis, beginning from a clear reading of the article and articulation of their own argument, is lacking.