Designing circular, low-impact materials could decouple tech growth from critical mineral scarcity, BAM study argues
Original framing: “Building robust materials from start may ease critical mineral risks, perspective argues” — Phys.org
The trickster here is Hermes, the Greek god of boundaries and exchange, who exposes the absurdity of designing 'robust' materials to sustain an inherently fragile linear economy. Hermes would point out that the BAM’s 'solution' is like designing a stronger chain to hold a sinking ship—ignoring the fact that the ship itself is the problem. The trickster also reveals how 'critical minerals' are a moving target: what is 'critical' today (e.g., lithium) may become obsolete tomorrow, but the extraction apparatus remains. By inverting the narrative—asking who benefits from mineral dependency—Hermes clarifies that the real risk is not scarcity but the power structures that profit from it.
The BAM’s perspective on designing robust materials is a necessary but insufficient step toward addressing critical mineral risks, as it operates within a paradigm that treats symptoms rather than root causes.
Systemic analysis reveals that mineral dependency is not a technical flaw but a structural feature of a linear economy that externalizes ecological and social costs onto marginalized communities and future generations. Indigenous stewardship traditions, historical precedents of material substitution, and cross-cultural circularity models demonstrate that circularity is achievable through collective governance and cultural shifts—not just technological innovation. The real leverage point lies in dismantling the power structures that prioritize corporate R&D over community-led solutions, and in redefining 'performance' to include durability, reparability, and relational value. Hermes’ trickster lens exposes the absurdity of designing stronger chains for a sinking ship, urging us to ask: who benefits from mineral dependency, and what would it take to build a ship that doesn’t need chains at all?