4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.