Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
There's a huge difference in the resources required to run it... but in the case of microprocessors in particular, I'm not certain that the resources to run it are more important than the resources to build it in the first place.

Industrial society is both highly resilient and highly vulnerable. If you take out a sufficiently small part of the system, it will be able to repair or replace it with relative ease. But if you take out too large a part of the system, the rest will collapse catastrophically. It is hard to see any viable path from here to a "half-industrial" society. And it is even harder to see why such a society would be desirable.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 01:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't argue on the technical feasibility of such a system, so I won't.  It is an interesting question to think of absolute minimum-possible plant requirements to make certain things, but not one that I can engage in on anything more than a purely speculative nature.

However, as for the desirability of such a thing, well, that seems a bit easier to answer.  The possibility of a "half-industrial" society provides an alternative to the either/or dichotomy we seem faced with - mass industrialism or life in 1700.  There are things that are good and useful and valuable in our modern technological repertoire, but our current means of producing them is horribly wasteful and environmentally damaging.  As most of our technology has been developed in the age of mass-production, our ways of thinking about these things has been similarly linked to the idea of mass-production.  However, is this a necessary link?  I don't think the technological means or possibilities of small-scale production have really been explored, because in our current system, they don't make sense.  However, that does not mean that they are impossible.

This is turning into a diary.  Maybe I'll write one.

by Zwackus on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 02:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on your definition of "mass production." If you mean mass production in the sense of assembly-line production of more or less uniform copies of a single blueprint, there is nothing that prevents mass production from being compatible with sustainable consumption patterns. Very few things are produced in only a handful of factories - meaning that we could scale back production of most goods by a factor of at least ten, and still not hit the physical limits where this definition of industrial mass production becomes non-viable. This would still be a fully industrial society, but it would have a much smaller ecological footprint.

OTOH, if you mean "mass production" in the sense of "producing a lot of cheap stuff that breaks fast and cannot be repaired," rather than - say - making stuff that's a little more expensive up-front but doesn't break if you give it a nasty look, and which can be repaired when it does break. Then yes, I agree that that kind of "mass production" has to go away.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat May 16th, 2009 at 03:03:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series