The first global civilisation. Plenty of previous collapses of local ones.
Whether a sustainable high technology regime can be achieved after the current collapse transient is unknown. It depends on both thermodynamics and kinetics. Many things are possible, but only some are reachable.
I mean, theoretically a sustainable high technology society can easily exist. It’s just whether it cares to be sustainable or not.
If you go far enough in technology you can create everything from raw resources and sufficient processing, and capture any pollution and process it further to make harmless. With enough energy, which we have practically infinite amounts of from our sun, there’s no theoretical limit for it. About the only problem would be rare earth stuff, or additional raw resources that have to be mined. But that could be mined from space.
There’s no fundamental reason why a theoretical technologically advanced civilization cannot be sustainable. It’s just that we don’t care at all to be so, and are not working towards it.
We are saying the same. Clearly the Earth ecosystem is proof that with sufficient level of control at nanoscale level sustainability is possible. In fact, physics tells us we can do quite a bit better than that.
Yes, we have effectively stopped trying to relevantly innovate in mid-1970s with some exceptions (semiconductor photolitho, optics and DNA technology). R&D in a collapse environment becomes more difficult, further reducing reachability of high technology regimes necessary for sustainability. Full closure self replication of solar power infrastructure largely with ISRU at small scale is a key technology for that.
The first global civilisation. Plenty of previous collapses of local ones.
Whether a sustainable high technology regime can be achieved after the current collapse transient is unknown. It depends on both thermodynamics and kinetics. Many things are possible, but only some are reachable.
I mean, theoretically a sustainable high technology society can easily exist. It’s just whether it cares to be sustainable or not.
If you go far enough in technology you can create everything from raw resources and sufficient processing, and capture any pollution and process it further to make harmless. With enough energy, which we have practically infinite amounts of from our sun, there’s no theoretical limit for it. About the only problem would be rare earth stuff, or additional raw resources that have to be mined. But that could be mined from space.
There’s no fundamental reason why a theoretical technologically advanced civilization cannot be sustainable. It’s just that we don’t care at all to be so, and are not working towards it.
We are saying the same. Clearly the Earth ecosystem is proof that with sufficient level of control at nanoscale level sustainability is possible. In fact, physics tells us we can do quite a bit better than that.
Yes, we have effectively stopped trying to relevantly innovate in mid-1970s with some exceptions (semiconductor photolitho, optics and DNA technology). R&D in a collapse environment becomes more difficult, further reducing reachability of high technology regimes necessary for sustainability. Full closure self replication of solar power infrastructure largely with ISRU at small scale is a key technology for that.