3 ms·

Is there anything such as true sustainability? If we assume the premise that perpetual motion machines are not possible, and hence all energy sources are eventu

by gcheong 18y ago

Is there anything such as true sustainability? If we assume the premise that perpetual motion machines are not possible, and hence all energy sources are eventually depleted, then what is the definition of sustainability in a practical sense? Is it until our sun supernovas? Until we destroy ourselves through war? Until we decide having children no longer suits our lifestyles? I keep seeing this word put out as some achievable concept when nobody seems to have defined it in any way that I can see that takes into account the ultimate reality of physics and I have wonder if I've gone mad or if maybe I'm truly missing something. I mean do people really think sustainability, in the sense of a perpetual, clean, energy source is actually achievable or do most people realize that ultimately it is impossible but use the term anyway as a mis-used but simple and useful term rather than something like hyper-efficient or something else?

jerf 18y ago
As you say, yes, if you really sit down and think about it, it's a tricky concept. My conclusion: It's all about the energy, and to a lesser extent, atoms. With sufficient energy and the right atoms, we can make anything we may wish to consume. With sufficient energy and technology we may even be able to fiddle with atoms to some extent. Therefore, "sustainable" technology is when we can survive on less energy than we can bring in for the given time period, and on fewer atoms than we can bring in for the given time. We are taking both out of the Earth at a fantastic rate, which isn't as bad as it sounds because the Earth (not to mention the universe) is freakin' huge and awash in both energy and atoms in the general sense. (The Universe is young.) What we run short on is two things: cheap atoms and energy, and complicated atomic configurations, particularly "food". In the case of some particular atoms, we can run out of those relatively soon (like palladium), but those are generally substitutable to some acceptable extent with other atoms and energy. Our current issues with inefficient and dangerous atom extraction and extraction of cheap energy from the Earth is an aberration, albeit a multi-century one that is still going strong. Long-term, there are only two solutions: To live with the meager resources that nature will provide us, which is to say, to live like savages, or to develop a nanotechnology so powerful that with the input of relatively small amounts of energy, a life form can be sustained. There's a low solution and is almost certainly a high solution; the middle solution (modern technology) is, as you intimate, not long-term sustainable no matter what we do. It does not matter how much we recycle or conserve or reuse, it doesn't matter if we drive Priuses or Hummers, this can't last. It can, however, extend the time frame we have to develop high technology, and given the various outcomes which I won't take the time to enumerate, it is almost certainly a good idea, as long as it doesn't hurt research into high technology. So even though what we currently call "sustainability" isn't, it does directly contribute to eventual sustainability by extending the time frame we have to develop it. Personally, I think the only limit for nanotechnology is ultimate physical limits, I see no great impediment remaining but time and effort. But I don't think anything less than a technology that can sustain a high-tech civilization truly indefinitely with only an energy input is truly "sustainable". I observe that if you look at the problem like this, a lot of things promoted in the name of sustainability actually harm our prospects of such technology.

by gcheong 18y ago

jerf 18y ago

As you say, yes, if you really sit down and think about it, it's a tricky concept. My conclusion: It's all about the energy, and to a lesser extent, atoms. With sufficient energy and the right atoms, we can make anything we may wish to consume. With sufficient energy and technology we may even be able to fiddle with atoms to some extent. Therefore, "sustainable" technology is when we can survive on less energy than we can bring in for the given time period, and on fewer atoms than we can bring in for the given time. We are taking both out of the Earth at a fantastic rate, which isn't as bad as it sounds because the Earth (not to mention the universe) is freakin' huge and awash in both energy and atoms in the general sense. (The Universe is young.) What we run short on is two things: cheap atoms and energy, and complicated atomic configurations, particularly "food". In the case of some particular atoms, we can run out of those relatively soon (like palladium), but those are generally substitutable to some acceptable extent with other atoms and energy. Our current issues with inefficient and dangerous atom extraction and extraction of cheap energy from the Earth is an aberration, albeit a multi-century one that is still going strong. Long-term, there are only two solutions: To live with the meager resources that nature will provide us, which is to say, to live like savages, or to develop a nanotechnology so powerful that with the input of relatively small amounts of energy, a life form can be sustained. There's a low solution and is almost certainly a high solution; the middle solution (modern technology) is, as you intimate, not long-term sustainable no matter what we do. It does not matter how much we recycle or conserve or reuse, it doesn't matter if we drive Priuses or Hummers, this can't last. It can, however, extend the time frame we have to develop high technology, and given the various outcomes which I won't take the time to enumerate, it is almost certainly a good idea, as long as it doesn't hurt research into high technology. So even though what we currently call "sustainability" isn't, it does directly contribute to eventual sustainability by extending the time frame we have to develop it. Personally, I think the only limit for nanotechnology is ultimate physical limits, I see no great impediment remaining but time and effort. But I don't think anything less than a technology that can sustain a high-tech civilization truly indefinitely with only an energy input is truly "sustainable". I observe that if you look at the problem like this, a lot of things promoted in the name of sustainability actually harm our prospects of such technology.