Wow, technology might not save us after all. We didn't see this coming.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
42 points (100.0% liked)
Collapse
883 readers
11 users here now
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, high volume and low relevance 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
- Old posts https://lemmy.ml/c/collapse
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Gotta start somewhere I guess! Good luck to them and hopes things turn better and more efficient in the future.
I wish them good luck when fighting the laws of thermodynamics.
Well it can be done, it's not breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Mhm. Using which energy sources?
They are not doing some "reverse energy consumption" (which would break at least 1 law of TD if successful) so as long as they don't emit more co2 than they capture there are net benefits.
Common, it's not that hard.
So where is the energy for capture and injection coming from?
Why are they unable to even negate their own footprint?
Ask them.
It's more or less research. Hopefully they will optimise their energy usage.
I was trying to make you think but failed.
You're just sealioning lol.
My bad. I thought I was just providing leading questions. Oh, well.
Explain why it would break a TD law if you're serious (it doesn't but I don't understand why you think it would).
I said fighting against the laws of thermodynamics.
Look at entropy in Direct Air Capture in https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.2c00043 What is missing in above is renewable energy infrastructure capable of rebuilding itself, rebuilding the DAC infrastructure and also powering it, and also provide enough surplus for infrastructure growth, using only non-fossil input.
You might find replicating fully autopoietic biological photosynthesis a remarkably hard task.
Well, lots of interesting information here, and hopefully they'll use better tech, more renewable energy and so on!
But you don't "fight" the laws of therodynamics (they are immutable), wich lead me (from your comment) to think that you thought that they cannot be carbon negative, because that would break one if the TD laws. If that's what you think, then I can explain why you are wrong, but if I was wrong, then we're on the same boat where they will have a hard time doing what they want (but it's not theiretically impossible).
It’s still more efficient than AI (and it seems world leader pretend to believe that AI will solve climate change 🤷♂️)
who would have thought...? their main selling point was: we can suck in as much air as a medium-sized forest. no more, no less
Actually less