3 ms·

This kind of thing is possible because we haven’t come around to recognizing the Earth as a finite, closed system. We’re pretty sure all the junk and pollution

This kind of thing is possible because we haven’t come around to recognizing the Earth as a finite, closed system. We’re pretty sure all the junk and pollution and carbon and whatnot goes Somewhere Else.

coolcase 1y ago
I think we are aware it is a closed system but doing the right thing is not rewarded. (Or wrong thing punished).
eru 1y ago
The earth is a giant ball of matter. You can reasonably model it as a closed system in terms of matter. But it's very open in terms of energy. There's practically unlimited space in landfills to take up any garbage we can produce. Later, when you need the materials, you can invest energy to mine your landfill. I'm not saying we should do that or that it's a good idea. My point is that 'earth is a closed system in terms of matter' is a much weaker and less profound statement than it sounds like. What is limited is the amount of resources we can cheaply get access to in the short run. Similarly while landfill space is practically unlimited, there's a limit to how much our various ecosystems can take, if we just dump our garbage and emissions into them directly. The latter aspect encompasses eg releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But also putting plastics in the ocean, where it might do real damage. (As compared to having the plastic sit around in a land fill.)
- roughly 1y ago
  The earth as a giant ball of matter is an interesting geological phenomenon, but our concern is more the earth as a viable biosphere, which, as you note, is a much more constrained system, and that seems to be the set of constraints we haven’t internalized yet.
  - eru 1y ago
    Yes. It's just that this is very distinct from the physical notion of a 'finite, closed system'. The biosphere isn't closed: it regularly exchanges material with the rest of the giant ball of matter.
    - roughly 1y ago
      I mean, I think it’s a distinction without a difference, is the problem - yes, the biosphere exchanges material with the rest of the ball of mud, but that, for all intents and purposes, is a closed system, and so things like its ability to draw down carbon, or dilute pollutants, or break down plastics, are constrained beyond where we apparently thought they were. Per the notion of landfill mining, that also puts constraints on how effective we can be there - how much energy we can commit to that, what level of wastage or side effects we can accept. We’ve had a philosophy that all problems will be solved in the future by technological developments, but our timelines don’t seem to be lining up right now.
      - 8note 1y ago
        carbon in the air only matters insofar as the earth is not a closed system. its a very big distinction. open and closed systems are specific terms
        roughly 1y ago
        You’re right, I’m not using the term in its correct physics meaning. Is there another word or phrase you’d suggest for the concept here?
        eru 1y ago
        Ecosystems have _finite capacity_ to cope with what we throw at them (and still be useful to us in the broadest sense). The qualification in parens is just there to take care of the objection that no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to eradicate all life on earth with current technology. But we can make life pretty miserable for humans with current technology. The benefit to us doesn't have to be in any monetary sense. Just the satisfaction of knowing there's a beautiful forest would count.

coolcase 1y ago

I think we are aware it is a closed system but doing the right thing is not rewarded. (Or wrong thing punished).

eru 1y ago

The earth is a giant ball of matter. You can reasonably model it as a closed system in terms of matter. But it's very open in terms of energy. There's practically unlimited space in landfills to take up any garbage we can produce. Later, when you need the materials, you can invest energy to mine your landfill. I'm not saying we should do that or that it's a good idea. My point is that 'earth is a closed system in terms of matter' is a much weaker and less profound statement than it sounds like. What is limited is the amount of resources we can cheaply get access to in the short run. Similarly while landfill space is practically unlimited, there's a limit to how much our various ecosystems can take, if we just dump our garbage and emissions into them directly. The latter aspect encompasses eg releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. But also putting plastics in the ocean, where it might do real damage. (As compared to having the plastic sit around in a land fill.)

roughly 1y ago
The earth as a giant ball of matter is an interesting geological phenomenon, but our concern is more the earth as a viable biosphere, which, as you note, is a much more constrained system, and that seems to be the set of constraints we haven’t internalized yet.
- eru 1y ago
  Yes. It's just that this is very distinct from the physical notion of a 'finite, closed system'. The biosphere isn't closed: it regularly exchanges material with the rest of the giant ball of matter.
  - roughly 1y ago
    I mean, I think it’s a distinction without a difference, is the problem - yes, the biosphere exchanges material with the rest of the ball of mud, but that, for all intents and purposes, is a closed system, and so things like its ability to draw down carbon, or dilute pollutants, or break down plastics, are constrained beyond where we apparently thought they were. Per the notion of landfill mining, that also puts constraints on how effective we can be there - how much energy we can commit to that, what level of wastage or side effects we can accept. We’ve had a philosophy that all problems will be solved in the future by technological developments, but our timelines don’t seem to be lining up right now.
    - 8note 1y ago
      carbon in the air only matters insofar as the earth is not a closed system. its a very big distinction. open and closed systems are specific terms
      - roughly 1y ago
        You’re right, I’m not using the term in its correct physics meaning. Is there another word or phrase you’d suggest for the concept here?
        eru 1y ago
        Ecosystems have _finite capacity_ to cope with what we throw at them (and still be useful to us in the broadest sense). The qualification in parens is just there to take care of the objection that no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to eradicate all life on earth with current technology. But we can make life pretty miserable for humans with current technology. The benefit to us doesn't have to be in any monetary sense. Just the satisfaction of knowing there's a beautiful forest would count.