Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxharris | Hacker News Reader

In these situations, it's important to know what the alternatives are. How much waste would there be if computer chips didn't exist? How much would there be if they didn't get faster and more capable each year?

Considering all of the different things that computers make possible (from advances in medical research to improved logistics, to more efficient designs for everything), my best guess is that computer chips produced this way are quite a leap forward for overall human well-being.

None of this makes me revel in or ignore anyone's suffering. All I'm trying to say is don't lose sight of the big picture, too. More and better technology (i.e., applied knowledge) is the answer to this problem. The specific form this probably takes is automation of the most dangerous work. And what controls those machines? More computer chips.

View on HN

The article doesn't imply that the chip production processes should be avoided.

It lists two options. First, there are alternative chemicals that are more safe but significantly more expensive, and thus will get used only if the legal system pressures the company do so, either by regulation or by punitive payments to the injured workers.

Second, handling of the carcinogenic chemicals can be moved from people to machines. This is already happening with increased automation purely for cost/efficiency reasons, but can be accelerated if the companies treat it seriously enough.

Often the expensive production method comes down in cost if it's used more. Presumably regulating the industry can also happen directly ("make production safer") or indirectly by allowing workers to sue for health problems.

Similar to the idea that the downsides of globalism intermixed with potent capitalism, say ecological damage, will be outweighed by the sorts of technologically imbued powers that will take our civilization far beyond Earth.

That's a religious position as long as you only focus on the benefits and don't account for the costs. And I say that as someone absolutely committed to that future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4

Also, I think that LaRouche nutters notwithstanding, the idea of putting these extremely hot plasmas to use to recycle materials in the coming fusion economy is going to solve most of the current problems of waste and materials. Even seemingly intractable problems such as what to do with nuclear waste get easier if you can separate the bulk of the non-radioactive material from the truly hot stuff. And indeed you can do that - 100 million degrees just strips the electrons right off, leaving charged particles that are easily sorted into neat, sorted pure piles of whatever elements were in your waste to begin with.

I haven't heard that before, but it certainly does appear that Elon Musk will take us to Mars. So maybe there is something to that after all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com