4 ms·

Even though I admire Bret victor's work very very much, I think we as technologists do not have much an influence over the issue by inventing. Instead, as I mys

by azeirah 10y ago

Even though I admire Bret victor's work very very much, I think we as technologists do not have much an influence over the issue by inventing. Instead, as I myself, and nearly everybody I know is barely aware of the issue at all, we need to make the general public aware of what is taking place through means of media. This has become a political problem, not a technology problem.

germinalphrase 10y ago
Tools for making complex systems understandable to people unfamiliar/unpracticed in scientific thinking could be a powerful part of influencing this political problem (which I agree it is).
henrikschroder 10y ago
Everyone knows, noone gives a shit, because most people can't afford to care. It's only a small sliver of humanity - the college-educated upper-middle class of the west - that cares, and even most of them are just socially posturing and not actually caring. What works is the economic argument, the best environmental choice has to become the cheapest one, and that's something technology can do. When solar power is cheaper than coal, coal power plants will shut down very quickly and be replaced by solar power plants. When electric cars are cheaper than ICE cars, noone is going to buy the latter, and vehicle pollution will quickly disappear as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jwatte 10y ago
  And you can drive those electric cars for perhaps 10 years after that switch, until the global food supply finally kicks the bucket. On the current course, we are looking at global nuclear war level disruption; the only question is "when." Estimates are between 2035 and 2070. The problem is: once we stop, were have decades more build up that catches up. Really, actually reading the science, I'm starting to think the Fermi paradox is solved. When you say "cheaper," anything we do today is cheaper than massive human death.
  - taneq 10y ago
    At least a nuclear winter would reverse the effects of the carbon emissions...

by azeirah 10y ago

germinalphrase 10y ago

Tools for making complex systems understandable to people unfamiliar/unpracticed in scientific thinking could be a powerful part of influencing this political problem (which I agree it is).

henrikschroder 10y ago

Everyone knows, noone gives a shit, because most people can't afford to care. It's only a small sliver of humanity - the college-educated upper-middle class of the west - that cares, and even most of them are just socially posturing and not actually caring. What works is the economic argument, the best environmental choice has to become the cheapest one, and that's something technology can do. When solar power is cheaper than coal, coal power plants will shut down very quickly and be replaced by solar power plants. When electric cars are cheaper than ICE cars, noone is going to buy the latter, and vehicle pollution will quickly disappear as well.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jwatte 10y ago
And you can drive those electric cars for perhaps 10 years after that switch, until the global food supply finally kicks the bucket. On the current course, we are looking at global nuclear war level disruption; the only question is "when." Estimates are between 2035 and 2070. The problem is: once we stop, were have decades more build up that catches up. Really, actually reading the science, I'm starting to think the Fermi paradox is solved. When you say "cheaper," anything we do today is cheaper than massive human death.
- taneq 10y ago
  At least a nuclear winter would reverse the effects of the carbon emissions...