Post-scarcity is unintuitive, and it can be a challenge to fully unpack all
of the assumptions we normally make about production. Just to clarify the
confusion about cost, let me reiterate that I am using the term in the
*economic
*sense. A commodity that is *economically *costless is something
While I agree with your projection please note nothing is costless. A major
reason chip labor is used is that it is still cheaper than AI/robotics. As that
changes, for better or worse, unemployment follows. Cost less NOT costless.
Michael Trachtenberg, PhD
Visiting Scientist
Department of
To counter :
Here's just one example from just this week in which the application of
computing power has yielded a leap forward in energy processes that may
readily be applied to CDR
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901211410.htm
On 7 Sep 2016 01:47, "Michael Trachtenberg"
HI Adam,
The majority of physical chemical processes while controlled will not be
accelerated greatly beyond known maxima simply by applying computing
capabilities.
Mike
Michael Trachtenberg, PhD
Visiting Scientist
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
Rutgers University
New
The connection is that economic cost is the CDR feasibility bottleneck. And
barring other physical limits, labor is the factor of production that makes
CDR (and everything else) expensive. *Machine *labor obviates this
feasibility bottleneck.
Choose any product or service, trace its supply chain
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the connection between improvements in information
technology (e.g. self-driving cars), which are solvable by virtue of faster
computation and better algorithms, and CDR, which is limited by energetics and
real physical and chemical processes while dealing with a
As I explain in detail in the papers I attached and in my other recent
work, there are two problems with this reasoning. The first hinges is how
we define prudence. *Ignoring *a possibility until evidence guarantees that
the outcome is certain is, I argue, not at all prudent. And the second is
I agree Adam. I’m currently doing some synthesis on aspects of the potential
implications of disruptive / exponential technologies (e.g. in relation to
ecosystems and clean energy) and while some topics (e.g. electric cars,
Blockchain) are now media-visible, others are not.
I think that a key
Certainly adding CO2 to the ocean has been throughly discussed, but curiously
not the safer, more secure and I think cheaper ways of first converting the CO2
to other stable forms like bicarbonates, carbonates, and recalcitrant organics
prior to ocean storage. No need to expensively make and
Thanks Bernard. Am all for restoring ecosystems to their former grandeur
(e.g., REDD+), but even if this could be perfectly and globally done 1) how
much would this change the growth and residence time of CO2 in air with an
extra 40GT/yr being emitted by humans and 2) where would 7.4x10^9
https://medium.com/@revkin/geoengineering-proponents-challenge-the-inevitability-of-multi-millennial-global-warming-cef6e54b365c#.ozexiicbo
Scientists Focused on Geoengineering Challenge the Inevitability of
Multi-Millennial Global Warming
I encourage anyone interested in climate change science
11 matches
Mail list logo
