[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]You make some excellent points that are undeniably true, but do keep in mind that most people here already acknowledged that moving away from silicon would at the least probably help get past 5nm, although how far past would remain to be seen. As others have said, we might have ten, maybe twenty years before silicon is no longer feasible (depending on just how long it takes us to reach silicon's practical limits) in its current use and at that point we'll either have to switch to some sort of 3D chips (different from 3D transistors such as Intel's 22nm process as I'm sure you understand), move on to another material, or something else.As for graphene, well, graphene is still a little new for that kind of thing relative to when the necessary breakthroughs came about (although by now, it shouldn't be unreasonable to have used it if we wanted too). Diamond, as you said, has been a practical option for a long time. As you said, we're still on silicon strictly to slow down innovation and maximize profits. Diamond has been dirt cheap to manufacture and use for something like this for years, Intel and such simply don't want to use it when they can still milk maybe another decade of profit out of silicon.[/citation]
Exactly my point.
Capitalism and competition are good for profits... but they do nothing for technological innovation or evolution (that much comes down to cooperation as history shows us on a continuous basis).
Graphene, regardless if its new, could have been used wherever possible since at least 2006... and practical experiences with synthetic diamonds if they were used in computers since 1997 would probably accelerate integration of diamonds and graphene.
We had technological ability to produce abundance ever since we perfected recycling technology in the late 19th century (which was when we were able to recycle heavy metals) - though recycling other materials was doable before that as well with high efficiency anyway.
Money at that point became fundamentally useless, and the crash that happened in 1929 merely confirmed that (which was prompted due to automation/mechanization).
For about a century now, we have the ability to mass-produce a synthetic material or technology within 12 to 24 months of the initial discovery, or basically immediately right after a prototype was made.
I'm sad to see how we limit ourselves continuously through obscure notions of 'money', 'value' and 'cost' which means nothing in terms of our ability to synthesize superior materials in abundance, or create more light-years more advanced technology.
What you basically see in circulation today is roughly 6 decades (in some cases up to a century) outdated (or effectively, no where near of what we can actually create today).
We already live in a world of abundance (both needs and wants, not to mention renewable energy) for over a century... and yet the system we live in creates artificially induced scarcity, because that's how a monetary system 'thrives'.
We need a huge shift in mentality to change things because the route we are taking now is fundamentally unsustainable in the long run - and its effectively keeping people in the dark of where our technology actually is.