4 ms·

How will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible withi

by scandox 10y ago

How will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. In addition if one culture does shrink and others simply grow more aggressively then the end result will be same. What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population and economy. That isn't something I can personally take hold of. Despite the fact that I do live rather minimally - I don't kid myself that it's changing anything. I just like it that way. I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.

spodek 10y ago
> I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. The system will change. It's already changing. The question is whether we design and follow the change or nature does it for us. The demise of the world's largest living structure is just the latest in decades of evidence. How much more do we need? This community is so enthusiastic about going to Mars, universal basic income, and other challenges to current systems. Why so resistant to this change? So enthusiastic about entrepreneurship solving problems except this fundamental belief that economies must grow. Are we so tied to bacon, big houses, and regular trips to Paris? Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years with cities of millions of people without planes, cars, and so on. We don't need them for happiness. Nor do we need to get rid of them. We can live a modern life with modern medicine, modern toys, the internet and so on, we just have to curb it a bit. Well, more than a bit. > I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach. Hence my point that changing my behavior improved my life and that I'm not special. Simplifying and reducing consumption from our culture's wastefulness isn't sacrifice. You don't have to keep believing it is. Simplifying and reducing consumption can materially improve your life. Even if it didn't, why not take responsibility for how your actions affect others like you wish past generations did instead of killing the Great Barrier Reef? Why not decouple your happiness from burning fossil fuels and owning more stuff? You don't have to keep waiting for everyone else.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  What's the point of caring deeply about the Great Barrier Reef if the only offered solution is to accept that I can never visit it? That's selfish, of course, but so is demanding that others curtail their lifestyles so some faraway coral you care about doesn't disappear. Frankly, the "challenge" of how to convince people to live as if most of the fruits of the industrial and technological revolutions never arrived is deeply unappealing. It's also nonsense on stilts: We don't get iPhones or specialized cancer cures without the consumer economy big enough to support demand for them.
cwkoss 10y ago
Our current status-quo system requires perpetual growth to maintain debt obligations (money is created by debt, which comes with interest. if economy doesn't grow, there must be defaults) Perpetual growth and protection of natural resources are inherently at odds with each other. Until the global economy fundamentally changes, things are only going to keep getting worse.

by scandox 10y ago

spodek 10y ago

> I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. The system will change. It's already changing. The question is whether we design and follow the change or nature does it for us. The demise of the world's largest living structure is just the latest in decades of evidence. How much more do we need? This community is so enthusiastic about going to Mars, universal basic income, and other challenges to current systems. Why so resistant to this change? So enthusiastic about entrepreneurship solving problems except this fundamental belief that economies must grow. Are we so tied to bacon, big houses, and regular trips to Paris? Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years with cities of millions of people without planes, cars, and so on. We don't need them for happiness. Nor do we need to get rid of them. We can live a modern life with modern medicine, modern toys, the internet and so on, we just have to curb it a bit. Well, more than a bit. > I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach. Hence my point that changing my behavior improved my life and that I'm not special. Simplifying and reducing consumption from our culture's wastefulness isn't sacrifice. You don't have to keep believing it is. Simplifying and reducing consumption can materially improve your life. Even if it didn't, why not take responsibility for how your actions affect others like you wish past generations did instead of killing the Great Barrier Reef? Why not decouple your happiness from burning fossil fuels and owning more stuff? You don't have to keep waiting for everyone else.

twoodfin 10y ago
What's the point of caring deeply about the Great Barrier Reef if the only offered solution is to accept that I can never visit it? That's selfish, of course, but so is demanding that others curtail their lifestyles so some faraway coral you care about doesn't disappear. Frankly, the "challenge" of how to convince people to live as if most of the fruits of the industrial and technological revolutions never arrived is deeply unappealing. It's also nonsense on stilts: We don't get iPhones or specialized cancer cures without the consumer economy big enough to support demand for them.

cwkoss 10y ago

Our current status-quo system requires perpetual growth to maintain debt obligations (money is created by debt, which comes with interest. if economy doesn't grow, there must be defaults) Perpetual growth and protection of natural resources are inherently at odds with each other. Until the global economy fundamentally changes, things are only going to keep getting worse.