Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society.

I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
23 Posts 15 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • btschumy@mas.toB btschumy@mas.to

    @australopithecus @benlockwood We might have the technology “in the lab” but we don’t have it at scale. To ramp up would be very expensive (as you said) but it would also take time, time that we really don’t have.

    australopithecus@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
    australopithecus@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
    australopithecus@mastodon.social
    wrote last edited by
    #12

    @btschumy @benlockwood
    Oh yeah, you mean we don't have the infrastructure in place. That's true, but it's also something we can and should start fixing whenever we want. China, for example, is already years ahead of everyone else on this with their huge solar fields. And sodium ion batteries are finally at a point where they're practical, especially for bulk grid storage of power.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • benlockwood@ecoevo.socialB benlockwood@ecoevo.social

      I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society. It is our political and economic structures that prevent it. The quest for unlimited growth and accumulation exploits both people and our environment.

      nicelymanifest@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
      nicelymanifest@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
      nicelymanifest@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #13

      @benlockwood And the media endlessly trotting out the importance of the bloody economy and growth - so often that it gets normalised. The repeat simple message that Hitler used.

      The economy principally serves those who really do not need 'more'.

      Bhutan government have a better idea - happiness of the people is their number 1 priority.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • benlockwood@ecoevo.socialB benlockwood@ecoevo.social

        I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society. It is our political and economic structures that prevent it. The quest for unlimited growth and accumulation exploits both people and our environment.

        midnitemikewrites@zirk.usM This user is from outside of this forum
        midnitemikewrites@zirk.usM This user is from outside of this forum
        midnitemikewrites@zirk.us
        wrote last edited by
        #14

        @benlockwood market economies are a wicked problem politicians treat as an engineering problem. Until that changes any runaway consequences will remain unaddressed.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • benlockwood@ecoevo.socialB benlockwood@ecoevo.social

          I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society. It is our political and economic structures that prevent it. The quest for unlimited growth and accumulation exploits both people and our environment.

          captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
          captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
          captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.world
          wrote last edited by
          #15

          @benlockwood

          if we had the will, we could find a way

          This Green Concrete Is Made From Urine: German Scientists Recreate Sandstone Texture Using Waste in Eco-Tech Breakthrough
          https://www.sustainability-times.com/research/this-green-concrete-is-made-from-urine-german-scientists-recreate-sandstone-texture-using-waste-in-eco-tech-breakthrough/

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • jeffc1956@mastodon.socialJ jeffc1956@mastodon.social

            @benlockwood
            It's our sociology as well; we seem to be both supporters and victims of an advertising-driven consumption and growth philosophy. Cradle to grave planning and circular economies don't seem to get much support from the common folk.

            #climatechange #climate

            captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
            captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.worldC This user is from outside of this forum
            captain_jack_sparrow@mastodon.world
            wrote last edited by
            #16

            @JeffC1956 @benlockwood

            we also have a global political system that tolerates genocide a a means of controlling the supply of "useful" resources, and a lobby system that maintains the fossil fuel industry

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • atlovato@mastodon.socialA atlovato@mastodon.social

              @btschumy @benlockwood - How true. The Dooms Day clock show globally very close to the apex. If Global warming continues the clock cannot be reversed. Are we stuck with the dangers of Fossil Fuel. Who knows.

              humanhorseshoes@mastodon.worldH This user is from outside of this forum
              humanhorseshoes@mastodon.worldH This user is from outside of this forum
              humanhorseshoes@mastodon.world
              wrote last edited by
              #17

              @atlovato @btschumy @benlockwood Doomsday

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • btschumy@mas.toB btschumy@mas.to

                @benlockwood Not sure I understand. It seems to me that knowledge of what is needed without the technology to accomplish it is not that useful. It is a start though.

                I don’t even think we really know what levels are sustainable. We have guesses but all we really know is that current levels are most certainly not sustainable.

                kzodasnowman@spore.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                kzodasnowman@spore.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                kzodasnowman@spore.social
                wrote last edited by
                #18

                @btschumy @benlockwood

                Here you go.

                "How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis"

                Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.

                Link Preview Image
                ScienceDirect

                favicon

                (www.sciencedirect.com)

                btschumy@mas.toB 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • btschumy@mas.toB btschumy@mas.to

                  @benlockwood I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily with the facts. For example, we don’t have the technology to make cement without using fossil fuels. Same for metals needed for electrification. All our large machinery runs on diesel fuels and there is no technology to electrify them.

                  We do have the technology to do better than we currently are but it is not clear if that will be good enough.

                  johnzajac@dice.campJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  johnzajac@dice.campJ This user is from outside of this forum
                  johnzajac@dice.camp
                  wrote last edited by
                  #19

                  @btschumy @benlockwood

                  Ah, but we *do* have the technology to recycle cement.

                  So there you have it.

                  Link Preview Image
                  Cement recycling method could help solve one of the world's biggest climate challenges

                  Researchers have developed a method to produce very low emission concrete at scale -- an innovation that could be transformative in the transition to net zero. The method, which the researchers say is 'an absolute miracle', uses the electrically-powered arc furnaces used for steel recycling to simultaneously recycle cement, the carbon-hungry component of concrete.

                  favicon

                  ScienceDaily (www.sciencedaily.com)

                  btschumy@mas.toB 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • benlockwood@ecoevo.socialB benlockwood@ecoevo.social

                    I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society. It is our political and economic structures that prevent it. The quest for unlimited growth and accumulation exploits both people and our environment.

                    ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icuA This user is from outside of this forum
                    ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icuA This user is from outside of this forum
                    ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu
                    wrote last edited by
                    #20
                    @benlockwood
                    optimising for efficiency could easily make a system far better than the current intentionally destroying the world, but even a well-run billions-of-people world would be ecological disaster

                    say you eliminate meat from the global diet, shut down all the pointless gpus and asics, consolidate travel and mass-introduce hydrogen as fuel or whatever, what you have left is still an agricultural system using like a quarter of earth's arable land, fed by a non-replenishing water table and fertilisers derived from fossil fuels and giant-mess mining, and still reliant on pesticides and "tech" and power grid (the former greatly diminished, but the latter ramping up to unprecedented levels) that require their own mines to dewater and planet-encircling supply chains (moving away from lithium to less power dense alternatives where that density doesn't matter can help but). eliminating poisonous fertiliser and pesticide runoff at least might be possible by a move to indoor farming, but that does require knowledge and technologies we haven't worked out yet, and it's still not enough to reach what i'd think of as an "ecological society". people are just now talking about steel production without coke, and similar innovations would be necessary in thousands of other places in supply chains (e.g. working without animal byproducts in industry) that might be easy, difficult, or currently impossible but would anyways need time and effort not yet put in
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • benlockwood@ecoevo.socialB benlockwood@ecoevo.social

                      I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: We already have all the knowledge and technology we need to make an ecological society. It is our political and economic structures that prevent it. The quest for unlimited growth and accumulation exploits both people and our environment.

                      nuwagaba2@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nuwagaba2@mastodon.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                      nuwagaba2@mastodon.social
                      wrote last edited by
                      #21

                      @benlockwood
                      How can we create the political and economic structures that support our ecological society?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • johnzajac@dice.campJ johnzajac@dice.camp

                        @btschumy @benlockwood

                        Ah, but we *do* have the technology to recycle cement.

                        So there you have it.

                        Link Preview Image
                        Cement recycling method could help solve one of the world's biggest climate challenges

                        Researchers have developed a method to produce very low emission concrete at scale -- an innovation that could be transformative in the transition to net zero. The method, which the researchers say is 'an absolute miracle', uses the electrically-powered arc furnaces used for steel recycling to simultaneously recycle cement, the carbon-hungry component of concrete.

                        favicon

                        ScienceDaily (www.sciencedaily.com)

                        btschumy@mas.toB This user is from outside of this forum
                        btschumy@mas.toB This user is from outside of this forum
                        btschumy@mas.to
                        wrote last edited by
                        #22

                        @johnzajac @benlockwood That is potentially promising. Let me know when it is out of the research phase and can be used at scale.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • kzodasnowman@spore.socialK kzodasnowman@spore.social

                          @btschumy @benlockwood

                          Here you go.

                          "How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis"

                          Provisioning decent living standards (DLS) for 8.5 billion people would require only 30% of current global resource and energy use, leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.

                          Link Preview Image
                          ScienceDirect

                          favicon

                          (www.sciencedirect.com)

                          btschumy@mas.toB This user is from outside of this forum
                          btschumy@mas.toB This user is from outside of this forum
                          btschumy@mas.to
                          wrote last edited by
                          #23

                          @kzodasnowman @benlockwood Not sure about “leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments”. Most analyses I’ve seen say we need to reduce consumption to around 30% of current levels just to avoid exceeding planetary boundaries. Not sure that there is much of a surplus.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups