3 ms·
thats ok i can take it but what you dont seem to get is that we are humans not systems and thus wont be making the changes any other way than through technology
by ThomPete 10y ago
thats ok i can take it but what you dont seem to get is that we are humans not systems and thus wont be making the changes any other way than through technology.
you are basically asking humans not to be human which i believe is a common engineering blind spot :)
dont hate the players hate the game.
- badosu 10y agoMaybe you're underestimating how human culture can change in few years, specially when you consider the rising economical impact of climate change...
- ThomPete 10y agoi dont think i am. humans have mostly changed because technology allowed them to. its those large progresses which gave us new opportunities to change. Edit: why the down vote? care to qualify rather than going trough all my comments you dont like and downvote them whoever you are?
- badosu 10y agoI did not downvote you, but I can point out that your focus on technology as the single most important factor in human behavior change may be oversimplistic.
- ThomPete 10y agoThats a discussion we can have its certainly not domething i am alone of thinking nor does it warrant downvotes.
- macawfish 10y agoI know that sometimes I downvote as a way of saying "dude, come on, will you please just look outside yourself for one second!" Or because I'm tired and frustrated about something that means a lot to me, but somebody is approaching it in a polemical or absolute style.
- ThomPete 10y agoPerhaps you should take a step back and reread what they actually said.
- kmonsen 10y agoThen we will sooner or later loose. It is true that this time we might avoid disaster (it will be very rough whatever we do from now on) with the help of technology. But that is just luck that there is a technology available to help us. In a slightly different world, solar would never be cheap enough or good enough to provide energy in a sustainable way. And this is true for many other aspects, tragedy of the commons is hundreds of years old. The fact is we need regulations and incentives to do the right thing.
- ThomPete 10y agoi am unconvinced regulation will help. i still find it quite telling that the biggest drop in US co2 emission was because of fracking not anything the otherwise very progressive obama adminstartion. just becuase its luck and we dont lime that doesn't mean regulation will work, thats simply the wrong way to think about this.
- exergy 10y agoYeah, you're right of course. Any solution requiring humans to change at large scales through raw appeals to emotion is itself Dead on Arrival. This is where I'm really happy that the cult of mustachianism[1] is spreading as virally as it is. More people than anyone could ever have imagined, up and down the economic spectrum and up and down the Cost Of Living spectrum, are banding together to save money, and by extension, reducing their carbon footprint. It's getting big enough that I get the feeling that the new status signifier is (slowly/glacially) becoming being able to live without excess. This is great because it will slowly shift the goalposts of what people aspire to. [1]: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/07/frugality-the-new-fanciness/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/07/frugality-the-new-...
- ThomPete 10y agoi think you are a victim of a little wishful thinking here. with around a billion people getting into the middle class you are going to see one thing only and that is an increase in resource usage. the normal populations usage is not the problem but the industry that support their consumption. you arent seeing humans change, you are seeing technology allowing for other types of living but any actual effect on climate they wont have.