5 ms·

>What's really needed is culture change on growth and consumption. It is not. At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. It wil

>What's really needed is culture change on growth and consumption. It is not. At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. It will not ever be. It will and should be exponential. Figure out how to make that happen or go join one of the religious groups that stop using new technology. We want, need, and benefit from growth. Our energy source just needs to change, and is changing. Plenty of earthbound solar and nuclear to satisfy our growth for a good while. There isn't enough fossil fuel around anyway if we wanted to keep growing with it. By the time we need it we can produce plenty of energy in space. Think square miles of solar arrays in solar orbits fixing energy into whatever passes for a future battery while also colocating with asteroid smelting and refining facilities.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
"Grow, grow, grow", said the obnoxious cancerous tumor... And then it killed its host and died. The. End.
pkdpic 3y ago
> There isn't enough fossil fuel around anyway if we wanted to keep growing with it I in all seriousness love this angle and find it super refreshing, the puny amount of oil on this tiny planet isn't enough to satisfy human ambition. We should own the stars.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Very little oil among the stars, though... Very little sunlight or wind on route either.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Fair amount of hydrogen. Get fusion working and you don't need much.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      ITER estimates they need 250 kilos of hydrogen per year for a 100MW plant, half deuterium half tritium. That's 125k/2 + 125k/3 = 103k moles of gas, so ~100k * N atoms of hydrogen. The interstellar medium density is given by the wiki as 10¹² molecules/m³, of which 70% is hydrogen. So, we need to absorb 100k moles * N / 10¹² = 6*10^16 cubic meters of ISM to get enough hydrogen for a 100MW plant on board the ship for one year. And this assumes that the hydrogen is available in exactly 50/50 deuterium/tritium combinations, which seems extremely improbable given that tritium has a very short half life (a few years at most). I very much doubt that refueling from the ISM is plausible.*
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        100MW is either a large ship or a fast ship. 100MW is more than the energy consumption of 50,000 homes. To collect 6*10^16 cubic meters/year at an average speed of 100km/h (walking pace in outer space), you'd need a "net" of less than 10km x 10km, which is completely plausible for a ship that large. If you have a small ship using the reactor for thrust, at 1% of the speed of light the width of the "net" is much smaller. And tritium is used in existing designs but we're still in the infancy of the technology. Stars fuse deuterium with neutron-free hydrogen (protons), and make the deuterium themselves.
hutzlibu 3y ago
> There isn't enough fossil fuel around anyway if we wanted to keep growing with it There is plenty of coal left and you can make oil out of it, so we could burn fossil fuels for centuries to come if we don't mind the side effects .. otherwise agree.
tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. From the 1200s to 1600s England went through a period of zero or extremely low growth.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Mostly due to the plague killing some massive fraction of the population in the 1300s?
RetroTechie 3y ago
> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. Generally: correct. So far. > It will not ever be. Yes, it will. This will be forced by 2 factors: a) The Earth we live on is essentially a closed system. Yes @ some point we might be able to mine asteroids, use extraterrestrial energy sources, move people off-planet etc. But this depends on technology to make this feasible. Until such technology appears, we're stuck on this rock. And thus, have to make do with what this rock provides. Which is a lot, but finite. b) The laws of physics (those related to energy, in particular). The "eternal growth" is a classical economist's view. Which (sadly) is very pervasive. Historically, population growth, raw materials consumption, energy use, and technological progress have been tightly coupled. But this coupling will be loosened. Technology will probably keep progressing ..somehow. Energy use might increase if eg. we can get nuclear fusion to work. Even that is not 100% a given, btw (apart from the timescale). How energy is generated will be very different 30..50y from now. But raw material consumption can NOT keep increasing. There is finite amounts of [insert material here] on this planet. Never mind agri stuff like phosphor, pollution, or the amount of CO2 we can release 'safely'. And it's not feasible to recover 100% of any reserve. Same with population. Earth is already too crowded. Would you want continued growth until entire Earth surface is covered with humans? Stacked 50 humans high? No? Then population growth will stop. Not to mention that population growth eats any gains made elsewhere (10% more raw materials, 10% more energy, 10% more food, followed by 10% more people = back to square 1 despite the gains). Historically this wasn't a problem because those limits weren't hit (well... they were, locally, which caused past civilizations to collapse). But we are hitting those limits now - globally. It's this decoupling of growth factors that's a hard pill for people to swallow. Especially economists & politicians. But don't worry! The laws of physics are very reliable.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  > @ some point we might be able to mine asteroids Essentially, we can do this now. There is no real technological barrier and several organizations are actively developing solutions. We're at over a billion dollars invested. Go read a report on the status of things [1]. This isn't far off science fiction but something practical folks are throwing money after. 1. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/space-mining-market-industry https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/space-mi...
tchaffee 3y ago
> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. This is a bold and hard to believe claim. Weren't the Dark Ages in fact a reversal? Can you provide a source for your claim?
jokoon 3y ago
> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. So? "The limits to growth" was published in the 70, you should try to educate yourself on finiteness of earth. Good luck with your space dreams. Smells like the Elysium movie.
goodpoint 3y ago
> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static Indeed countless civilizations collapsed once they depleted natural resources.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

"Grow, grow, grow", said the obnoxious cancerous tumor... And then it killed its host and died. The. End.

pkdpic 3y ago

> There isn't enough fossil fuel around anyway if we wanted to keep growing with it I in all seriousness love this angle and find it super refreshing, the puny amount of oil on this tiny planet isn't enough to satisfy human ambition. We should own the stars.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Very little oil among the stars, though... Very little sunlight or wind on route either.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Fair amount of hydrogen. Get fusion working and you don't need much.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    ITER estimates they need 250 kilos of hydrogen per year for a 100MW plant, half deuterium half tritium. That's 125k/2 + 125k/3 = 103k moles of gas, so ~100k * N atoms of hydrogen. The interstellar medium density is given by the wiki as 10¹² molecules/m³, of which 70% is hydrogen. So, we need to absorb 100k moles * N / 10¹² = 6*10^16 cubic meters of ISM to get enough hydrogen for a 100MW plant on board the ship for one year. And this assumes that the hydrogen is available in exactly 50/50 deuterium/tritium combinations, which seems extremely improbable given that tritium has a very short half life (a few years at most). I very much doubt that refueling from the ISM is plausible.*
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      100MW is either a large ship or a fast ship. 100MW is more than the energy consumption of 50,000 homes. To collect 6*10^16 cubic meters/year at an average speed of 100km/h (walking pace in outer space), you'd need a "net" of less than 10km x 10km, which is completely plausible for a ship that large. If you have a small ship using the reactor for thrust, at 1% of the speed of light the width of the "net" is much smaller. And tritium is used in existing designs but we're still in the infancy of the technology. Stars fuse deuterium with neutron-free hydrogen (protons), and make the deuterium themselves.

hutzlibu 3y ago

> There isn't enough fossil fuel around anyway if we wanted to keep growing with it There is plenty of coal left and you can make oil out of it, so we could burn fossil fuels for centuries to come if we don't mind the side effects .. otherwise agree.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

>At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. From the 1200s to 1600s England went through a period of zero or extremely low growth.

pjc50 3y ago
Mostly due to the plague killing some massive fraction of the population in the 1300s?

RetroTechie 3y ago

> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. Generally: correct. So far. > It will not ever be. Yes, it will. This will be forced by 2 factors: a) The Earth we live on is essentially a closed system. Yes @ some point we might be able to mine asteroids, use extraterrestrial energy sources, move people off-planet etc. But this depends on technology to make this feasible. Until such technology appears, we're stuck on this rock. And thus, have to make do with what this rock provides. Which is a lot, but finite. b) The laws of physics (those related to energy, in particular). The "eternal growth" is a classical economist's view. Which (sadly) is very pervasive. Historically, population growth, raw materials consumption, energy use, and technological progress have been tightly coupled. But this coupling will be loosened. Technology will probably keep progressing ..somehow. Energy use might increase if eg. we can get nuclear fusion to work. Even that is not 100% a given, btw (apart from the timescale). How energy is generated will be very different 30..50y from now. But raw material consumption can NOT keep increasing. There is finite amounts of [insert material here] on this planet. Never mind agri stuff like phosphor, pollution, or the amount of CO2 we can release 'safely'. And it's not feasible to recover 100% of any reserve. Same with population. Earth is already too crowded. Would you want continued growth until entire Earth surface is covered with humans? Stacked 50 humans high? No? Then population growth will stop. Not to mention that population growth eats any gains made elsewhere (10% more raw materials, 10% more energy, 10% more food, followed by 10% more people = back to square 1 despite the gains). Historically this wasn't a problem because those limits weren't hit (well... they were, locally, which caused past civilizations to collapse). But we are hitting those limits now - globally. It's this decoupling of growth factors that's a hard pill for people to swallow. Especially economists & politicians. But don't worry! The laws of physics are very reliable.

colechristensen 3y ago
> @ some point we might be able to mine asteroids Essentially, we can do this now. There is no real technological barrier and several organizations are actively developing solutions. We're at over a billion dollars invested. Go read a report on the status of things [1]. This isn't far off science fiction but something practical folks are throwing money after. 1. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/space-mining-market-industry https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/space-mi...

tchaffee 3y ago

> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. This is a bold and hard to believe claim. Weren't the Dark Ages in fact a reversal? Can you provide a source for your claim?

jokoon 3y ago

> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static. So? "The limits to growth" was published in the 70, you should try to educate yourself on finiteness of earth. Good luck with your space dreams. Smells like the Elysium movie.

goodpoint 3y ago

> At no point in the history of human civilization has growth been static Indeed countless civilizations collapsed once they depleted natural resources.