[_yb2s]

> Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction

There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.”

In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up.

Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.

[vouaobrasil]

So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always.

It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it.

Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical.

No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there.

Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.

[_yb2s]

I sympathize with you and feel as Thoreau said that "men have become the tools of their tools." I care deeply about the natural environment, and find most modern technology dehumanizing. I enjoy simple living and spend most of my time on a small sailboat with no electricity or motor. I personally study "primitive" skills like gathering food, and making boats and buildings with simple hand tools. I feel an essential part of being a healthy human is having a deep connection to, and knowledge about your local environment and watershed.

However, there is more than a small chance of the future I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air, with little to no impacts. I am an academic scientist, and am focused on solving the specific problems that will make what I am talking about possible- and basically everything I mentioned is already working fairly well... and is already cheaper, safer, and more practical then petroleum chemistry and mining if you factor in externalities. However, the only real path I see to getting people to use it is to make it better still, so it is fundamentally cheaper and superior, without even factoring in the externalities and nasty impacts of our current way of doing things.

Degrowth is quite frankly not going to happen voluntarily, it's a cultural and political non-starter, and also leaves us with an inability to fix the massive damage to the planet we've already caused, and leaves us dying from diseases that we are very close to understanding how to prevent. We've decimated and poisoned our natural environment such that simple living is no longer even possible in most places- where I live the fish and other wildlife are almost all gone, and the few left are too toxic to eat. Let's instead go all in on understanding science so that we can in principle do almost anything we can imagine with little resources or impacts, and then also have much higher standards for what we actually choose to do with the knowledge.

Edit: I looked at your blog and agree with a lot of what you are saying, but also disagree with a lot, but see you are a deep thinker that cares a lot about this stuff. I think it would be interesting to talk to you more.

[vouaobrasil]

> I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air,

I really would like a citation for this, perhaps several. How do we make various metals from carbon from the air? How could we make the silicon for the solar panels? Lubricants for the wind turbines? Lithium for the batteries? Or will all batteries be made out of pure carbon?

Metal is required for industrial civilization. Even if it isn't, not everything could be made from just the gaseous elements in the air.

I really do love the idea that we COULD do that. If you're right, what I am doing is completely unnecessary. In that case, I will gladly accept that I am wrong.

But if I am right, then civilization will start to destabilize and we will have to give up advanced technology and I will also accept that and work towards making that a better future.

I may not be right all the time, and honestly, TRULY, hope that I am wrong....feel free to email of course if you ever want a deeper chat.

[_yb2s]

Happy to provide citations, but I think more explanation is in order. The stuff we currently make from metals and petroleum are not optimal, they are just whatever we could easily make from those things we could find historically.

With precise, programmable control over biochemistry, we can make almost any organic carbon based molecule from almost any other carbon source- but obviously not things like metals. However, I posit we will be able to make things with drastically superior performance that fills all of the same use cases. Consider for example that Dyneema - which is just simple straight saturated carbon chains- is already 15x the strength of steel on a weight basis. I'm talking about being able to predict the properties of a molecule ahead of time, and then make something with exactly the properties we want.

It would be quite shortsighted to make a more environmentally friendly way of making the exact same stuff when those things were limited by constraints that no longer apply and we have the potential for drastically superior materials (stronger, more durable, lower toxicity, more recyclable, etc.) for a specific problem- but it depends on what specific problem you are addressing.

[gsf_emergency]

As I imply below we should also be able to biosynth silicon-based stuff :)

FWIW I doubt we understand biology enough today to make biomanufacturing more efficient than conventional industrial processes, see the non sequitur of fungi based meat substitutes.

However, in the meantime, we can defo learn from bio to improve or even revolutionize our processes.

The other thing is: CO2 capture is also going to be far less feasible than increasing albedo, that's where we should focus our short term imagination. Don't lose hope for albedo increase to be biotech based, in the short term, though!

(Eat meat that shit little yet fart more like humans)

[_yb2s]

True, in addition to things like diatoms making silicon structures, magnetotactic bacteria make iron containing metallic structures to detect magnetic fields. It is in principle possible to both recycle and manufacture metal and silicon objects biologically with precise control over 3D structure... but a lot further off from making carbon based small molecules and polymers.

[gsf_emergency]

Hey, if you're for degrowth, demetallization, and not just defossilfuelization/depolymerization is the way to go.

Basically, replace most electricity with photonics, the rest with ionics. We have efficient ion-flow based computing and flying machines, don't we? (Birds & brains)

As for how to revamp the rest of the "irreplaceable" material culture not based on photosynthesis: What's in it for me to talk to you about this :)? How many years further have you seen than Grothendieck, since Fuller was not so visionary after all? (Including, how to fund actionable, scalable stuff, that's 30 years give or take 5)

(Note that there are siliceous, if not entirely silicon-based, lifeforms on earth. Diatoms, molluscs, etc, perhaps a significant amount of our low-end chips already come from them, through seasand? :)