But we are bombarded with low entropy energy (Sun), that goes to high entropy energy, you could say it's wasted. We could use it for recycling. I'm not really following the argument, I might be missing something.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
7 points (81.8% liked)
Collapse
3240 readers
1 users here now
We have moved to https://lemm.ee/c/collapse -- please adjust your subscriptions
This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.
Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.
RULES
1 - Remember the human
2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source
3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.
4 - No low effort posts.
Related lemmys:
- /c/green
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/nativeplantgardening@mander.xyz
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- c/collapse@sopuli.xyz
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Biology shows existing entropy gradient allows for indefinitely (for billions of years) sustainable systems. However our current technology and especially its scale degrades the entropy of its environment (depletes fossil energy and ore concentrates which need geological time spans to recover). We need a traversable path to a technology capable of sustainability and that path might well not exist. Edo era Japan technology might be borderline sustainable at a low population density but is a progress trap.
The discussion is pretty complex because it's not legitimate from some points of view. Like, what is the general philosophy guiding the number of humans? As many as possible? Why? As less as possible? Again, why? We're banging our heads for solutions without even understanding the situation. Which is politically complicated as well. We're either workforce (primarily and above everything else) in which case as many as possible with barely any kind of humane conditions either we're fucking special and we all deserve the best fucking experience in which case there's a clear upper bound on how many Earth's resources can fit, considering everything. So we're left in this grey area where you can't really come up with concrete solutions and directions, only political bullshit.
edit: As in "they" (ruling class) are seeing us as working animals and nothing else in which case they'd fit as many of us as possible on the least possible resources just to get work out of us, while at the same time saying "Oh human life and experience is so special yeah". Because there would be a hell of a time trying to get as many as possible to work for a continually worse future. That's pretty messed up, psychologically. Working your ass off just to know you'll be worse off in some years because more are coming here and there's only a set number for resources, so logically quality of life can only go down.
The relevant constraint is the carrying capacity of the ecosystem beyond the short run, i.e. without fossil fuels, depleted resource base and the ecosystem services due the overshoot, at some level of technology sustainable under the circumstances. We're over an order of magnitude beyond these limits, by most estimates.
This argument applies to current technology at its scale. It's not a fundamental physical limitation. However we do not have time to leap to the next level.
Yeah. Entropy increases in a closed system, but we keep receiving low-entropy energy from the sun.
By this argument, sustainable energy is solar powered.
Yes, but current sustainable energy sources arguably can't sustain even themselves and their support base. We can do better, but not soon and only by continuing the R&D process.