Roboticists in the age of ecological challenges

[nonoLeRobot]

Hello, it's been a long time since I came but I don't forget econology and all that it brought me.

In my work (research in robotics and artificial intelligence), I organized a day on "Roboticians in the age of ecological challenges". Admittedly, robotics does not yet have much impact, but it will become so, especially through the changes in society that it will generate. It is also an opportunity to remind people who are not necessarily concerned about the issues of energy and global warming (I am also talking about econology in it)

I'm thinking of organizing other days on the same theme, I wanted to know what you thought about it and if you had any comments.

Thanks, have a good day,

[Christophe]

Hi Nono,

Glad to see you posting here! You are coming back strong here!

I'm going to watch your conference and give you feedback (if I have things to say, not sure...)!

[Remundo]

It's a difficult question that I don't know how to answer.

Robotics is the ultimate development of the machine. As such, any robot requires a lot of metals, materials, electronics, and energy.

I don't know if robots can really be "green" or help us to be. Perhaps in a few situations to clear.

Interesting passage of Haroun Tazieff on the CO2 emitted and its consequences, in 1979, for the less visionary.

At the time we do not really believe it. Even Cousteau, though ecologically sensitive, plays down Tazieff's fears.

[nonoLeRobot]

At the time we do not really believe it. Even Cousteau, though ecologically sensitive, plays down Tazieff's fears.

Cousteau did oil prospecting, this may explain that: http://www.passioncalypso.com/fr/missio ... petroliere
He does not lie but he minimizes

[Remundo]

in the context of 1979, there was less worry about CO2 and climate change.

at the time, the figure of 20 GT CO2/year came out in the report, now we are at 40 GT/year and more...

At the time, these 20 GTs were probably more absorbed than our 40 GTs now. In the meantime, deforestation and ocean acidification are reducing natural absorption capacities.

In addition, the reflective albedo of the pack ice disappears to give way to the very absorbent albedo of the liquid sea.

We have crossed 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and 450 will soon be reached "and more if you like"

In summary, all the levers are in the red.

[Obamot]

On Form
I answer modestly on this one at first, because the whole thing is a big job to be commended! So for the question asked concerning the opinions on the video (most of us are not qualified to express ourselves on the merits). This is a remark that is intended to be constructive to improve the appeal, although I am aware that "editing" in video is a heavy job... But this mini remark should not encumber the essential, which is the content, but be there to reinforce it.

I therefore liked it, however I find that the frequent use of the "voice-over" harms the living aspect of the documentary (if the video images of the speakers exist), especially during the introductory sequence — whereas there is no need to show documents and other graphics on the screen yet — because it gives a very static aspect from the start (and I found that a shame given the very interesting and detailed aspect of the material)

On the background (I might come back to this)
On the Co², we felt that the debate was tense on the subject, the fact is that Tazieff (the UN and many environmental movements) who advocated the fight against deforestation and on the contrary campaigned for reforestation, joined the opinion of Cousteau on this point, they were unfortunately not followed. We could very well 'minimize' while accepting, out of prudence, to do everything possible to thwart anthropogenic emissions of Co², and therefore this point could not be reproached to either of them.

Contrary to certain climatosceptics of today - who under the pretext that the critical anthropic part would represent only 1,5% of overload - refuse to join the camp of the reason (which joins the bottom). There is therefore no need to correct this point, phew!

[Remundo]

a synthetic article to read here:

https://www.notre-planete.info/indicate ... ssions.php

I don't know what "robots" can bring us here. But here's the conclusion...

Global greenhouse gas emissions (counted in CO2 equivalent taking into account methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases) were approximately 59 billion tonnes of CO2e (GtCO2e) in 2019, this is 12% more than in 2010 and 54% more than in 1990, the reference year of the Kyoto Protocol.
The decade 2010-2019 broke records for greenhouse gas emissions with an annual average of around 56 GtCO2-eq, which is 9,1 GtCO2-eq more than during 2000-2009 (Climate Change 2022 : Mitigation of Climate Change - IPCC, 2022)

Notes

Projections of CO2 levels depend on the political, technological, economic and demographic choices of our societies. We indicate here the SSP3-7.0 scenario of the 6th IPCC Report. This is a pessimistic but realistic scenario called “regional rivalries”: greenhouse gas emissions and temperatures increase steadily; countries become more competitive with each other, prioritizing their national and food security; at the end of the century, average temperatures increased by 3,6°C.

[nonoLeRobot]

Thank you Remundo but I don't really see what to do with this additional information which confirms that we are still emitting more CO2.

Thank you, Obamot, I agree with you but no I don't have the external recording of the speakers. Filming with good sound on top of everything else is a job in its own right. I will consider another device next time.

[Remundo]

Hi Nono

Well tell us, in a synthetic way, how robots (which ones?) and their functions (which ones)? Will have a zero CO2 balance at best, and ideally negative (in the sense that atmospheric CO2 decreases).

I ask the question a little naively, but I will be happy to have good news.

[nonoLeRobot]

I don't quite understand your question. I spend half an hour explaining that technology will not solve the problem.

I explain that improving efficiency does not necessarily have positive effects. I give examples of past solutions where we see that technology had nothing to do with it, I invite people to show the problems related to digital, to 5G.

I tell myself that I have not yet been clear enough, but no, robotics does not have a positive effect on energy and global warming. After like all other areas it could if we wanted. Ex. Agriculture (mechanical weeding, no need for large heavy tractors, better analyses, optimization of resources ....), home automation (better management of heating, shutters, etc.), shared transport ...