First off, thanks everyone for being a part of this community. We’ve got nearly 200 subscribers and are maintaining an email open rate of well over 50% — which is awesome. If you’re getting value from this, please share with your friends, family, and colleagues.
At the beginning of issue #5, I defined what I mean when I use the phrase “sustainability.” It’s obviously different from what many people mean, so I wanted to open the floor on that question here.
What do you think sustainability means? Is it an appropriate goal for human civilization?
I think you've got a decent working definition of sustainability there in the abstract, but I think it can be too limiting depending on how you extrapolate and consider different time periods. As you say, the only true "new" input on Earth is sunlight, so a strict reading of that definition implies that we need to get to the point where our economy is ONLY consuming energy (either harnessed directly through, e.g. solar panels, or through derivatives of solar energy like wind or micro hydro). While that's an admirable goal and a good thing to work for, I worry about the potential to conflate dramatically different problem timeframes/urgency with the sole focus on "enabling civilization to survive indefinitely". In particular, I think we HAVE to assume that civilization is going to change in difficult-to-impossible to predict ways in the future, and that those changes are going to have potentially dramatic effects on resource consumption. To me this means that in considerations of sustainability you should probably consider some kind of time decay on "relative sustainability" of a resource based on how far out in the future our known supplies are projected to last at current/near-term projected rates - a resource that we know is theoretically limited, but known supplies are projected to last for 100s of years should probably be considered more sustainable than one that's projected to run out in 10 years (of course, supply can't be the only measure of sustainability - externalities need to be included as well, since a plentiful resource that causes massive harm - e.g. coal - still needs to be considered unsustainable).
I think it's an important concept to work into your definition though, because I don't see any realistic solutions to climate change at this point other than a fairly large mix of new technologies and infrastructure to accomplish the emissions reductions/replacement and CO2 removal that need to happen, and I think almost all of those technologies are going to have some degree of "unsustainable" (in the "to eternity" sense) trade-offs or resource use involved in some portion of their life cycles. At this point, we're pretty close to needing a "try everything" approach, especially on the research side (I feel like at this point we should basically be pumping $ into almost anything that shows any promise at all in the realm of net zero energy production and CO2 removal), but in the alternative universe where this stuff was actually being taken seriously by well-meaning policy-makers and funded appropriately, I think that measures of relative sustainability that incorporate time discounting become a very important metric for choosing between technologies and allocating money.
I think you've got a decent working definition of sustainability there in the abstract, but I think it can be too limiting depending on how you extrapolate and consider different time periods. As you say, the only true "new" input on Earth is sunlight, so a strict reading of that definition implies that we need to get to the point where our economy is ONLY consuming energy (either harnessed directly through, e.g. solar panels, or through derivatives of solar energy like wind or micro hydro). While that's an admirable goal and a good thing to work for, I worry about the potential to conflate dramatically different problem timeframes/urgency with the sole focus on "enabling civilization to survive indefinitely". In particular, I think we HAVE to assume that civilization is going to change in difficult-to-impossible to predict ways in the future, and that those changes are going to have potentially dramatic effects on resource consumption. To me this means that in considerations of sustainability you should probably consider some kind of time decay on "relative sustainability" of a resource based on how far out in the future our known supplies are projected to last at current/near-term projected rates - a resource that we know is theoretically limited, but known supplies are projected to last for 100s of years should probably be considered more sustainable than one that's projected to run out in 10 years (of course, supply can't be the only measure of sustainability - externalities need to be included as well, since a plentiful resource that causes massive harm - e.g. coal - still needs to be considered unsustainable).
I think it's an important concept to work into your definition though, because I don't see any realistic solutions to climate change at this point other than a fairly large mix of new technologies and infrastructure to accomplish the emissions reductions/replacement and CO2 removal that need to happen, and I think almost all of those technologies are going to have some degree of "unsustainable" (in the "to eternity" sense) trade-offs or resource use involved in some portion of their life cycles. At this point, we're pretty close to needing a "try everything" approach, especially on the research side (I feel like at this point we should basically be pumping $ into almost anything that shows any promise at all in the realm of net zero energy production and CO2 removal), but in the alternative universe where this stuff was actually being taken seriously by well-meaning policy-makers and funded appropriately, I think that measures of relative sustainability that incorporate time discounting become a very important metric for choosing between technologies and allocating money.