Eugen Leitl eugen@leitl.org
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:11:19 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:

> Everyone knows chip factories pollute.  You can have that strawman.  

So we're not actually arguing. Current chip factories are energy
intensive/unit of output and dirty. Fortunately, we seem to be moving
towards nanolithoprinters, finally. Via the detour of inkjet
polymer/nanodot suspension deposition.

> Show me one chip factory anywhere in the world that's not under
> regulatory control.  Go back to your first post, show me one chip

You're still in the boolean domain. "Factories pollute. Factories are
regulated." The world is big and diverse, and so are the regulations.  
They evolve over time. What's ok now is not ok a decade downstream. In
some places the regulations are lax enough to be negligible.

> factory anywhere in the world that dumps chemicals into streams that
> run by the factory.  You keep making this huge leap of logic.  It

I've actually did forward that post that early Silicon Valley fabs (which, 
doubtlessly, were also regulated) were doing just that. I think you'll 
find places in China and elsewhere where similiar practises still exist.

> reminds me of that cartoon that has the "and then a miracle happened"
> on the blackboard.  Why not try a more effective argument such as "We
> need tighter regulatory controls as current ones aren't protecting the
> environment enough because... cite, cite, cite incidents are happening
> despite existing regulatory controls."

My point (which was not about regulations working, and plants being dirty, 
both things which you for some reason latched upon) but about that 
molecular circuitry and especially molecular manufacturing are extremely 
disruptive in the amount of energy and material spent to produce a given 
functionality, and the amount and type of waste produced. In case of 
molecular manufacturing the waste can be literally approaching zero.
> The current argument you are presenting is akin to Renault in
> Casablanca saying, "Iam shocked, SHOCKED to find that chemicals is
> going on in there [chip making]."  I'm making fun of your logic, not
> the content of your argument.

You're making fun of what you think is my argument. Unfortunately, you're 
tackling strawmen. We don't disagree, we just communicating perfectly