On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 02:45:01PM -0700, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:
> Well let's see if I can tie it into the 3I & let's use your example
> above.  (Doesn't it seem like it damn near *impossible* to produce
> *anything* hi-tech w/o toxic waste?)

It's damn near impossible to produce anything at all, high-tech or
not, without producing toxic waste.  Even breathing produces toxic
waste.  The only question is whether you just dump it somewhere, or
deal with it before it becomes a major issue.  The former is a lot
cheaper and easier, and would likely remain so in the future.

One problem is energy.  A lot of forms of waste can be rendered
nontoxic by processes that are unfortunately energy-hungry.  That's
not a problem in the 3I, since energy is extremely cheap.

Even in a future abundant in energy, economies of scale likely apply.
Smaller scale waste reformation facilities at the site of creation are
unlikely to be as efficient as centralizing the process in a dedicated
larger operation, which then introduces some costs and risks of
storage at both ends, transport, larger-scale accidents, and so on.

Of course, even enormous amounts of hideously toxic waste wouldn't be
much of a problem if the industry was on a barren rockball with an
environment inimical to life in the first place.  But who wants to
live and work in such a place?  That would add to labour costs,
transport, construction, life support, safety, and lots of others.

In short: it's likely to always remain cheapest to build somewhere
that people want to live, and then mess it up (or at least risk
messing it up).

- Tim