5 ms·

> Essentially, there were many "doomsday scenarios" wherein the context of the late 1800s was that vast supplies of natural fertilizer were used up and people w

> Essentially, there were many "doomsday scenarios" wherein the context of the late 1800s was that vast supplies of natural fertilizer were used up and people were very worried about food supplies. Assuming scientists will come up with a new technology is a bad survival strategy. At this rate, we expect our children to find a way around climate change, ocean acidification and soil erosion. Mankind is one fat dude who'd rather dream about diet pills than stop eating.

workthrowaway27 9y ago
I don't think we really expect our children to do that. It's just there aren't any good options right now. The world is so dependent on hydrocarbons and large scale agriculture that there is no viable alternative.
- socialist_coder 9y ago
  Not viable? Just depends on who you ask or what your definition of viable is. We need to rip that bandage off now and reduce our standard of living by however much it takes to get into a sustainable symbiosis with our planet. Fossil fuel companies: bankrupt Cheap Chinese goods: gone Meat in every meal: nope Cheap processed foods: gone It would be a huge lifestyle change for everyone on the planet. Difficult, but certainly viable.
  - workthrowaway27 9y ago
    Fossil fuel companies being bankrupt is not viable. Fossil fuels allow the modern world to function. How are you going to get food distributed across the country without fossil fuels? How are you going to make sure critical infrastructure continues to run? Edit: I'm not saying fossil fuel dependency is a good thing, but it's a fact of life, and any realistic proposal for moving away from fossil fuels needs to start with accurately understanding just how important they are.
    - socialist_coder 9y ago
      None of those problems are difficult to solve if we actually care. If we want to move off fossil fuels, we could do so in a couple decades. Also, maybe the fact that we have to distribute food across the country is part of the problem. If food prices in areas that can't grow food nearby go up 100x then people will move.
      - workthrowaway27 9y ago
        Hmmmm, I mostly agree. Except I think our definitions of difficult are different. People are complaining about how hard it is to move out of the Bay Area, which they can't afford to live in. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to move millions of people so they can live closer to food sources. Those people also need jobs so they can afford food, and it's hard or impossible to move industries that are capital intensive or depend on natural resources. It's pretty obvious that eventually we'll have to deal with these problems, but I don't see how society will start the process voluntarily. It's too disruptive and there is no financial incentive to do so. (And even if one country decides to, then they lose out relative to every country that decides not to, so it really has to be an everyone or no one thing).
        evanwise 9y ago
        There's no financial incentive to fix things? It's almost like we need some kind of revolution to upend the existing system and replace it with one that addresses people's needs directly rather than blindly maximizing financial gains. I feel like I read something about this once...
    - ASalazarMX 9y ago
      > How are you going to get food distributed across the country without fossil fuels You would distribute less and source more locally. No more bananas or mangoes. That was the idea behind the "reduce our standard of living" phrase.
      - workthrowaway27 9y ago

workthrowaway27 9y ago

I don't think we really expect our children to do that. It's just there aren't any good options right now. The world is so dependent on hydrocarbons and large scale agriculture that there is no viable alternative.

socialist_coder 9y ago
Not viable? Just depends on who you ask or what your definition of viable is. We need to rip that bandage off now and reduce our standard of living by however much it takes to get into a sustainable symbiosis with our planet. Fossil fuel companies: bankrupt Cheap Chinese goods: gone Meat in every meal: nope Cheap processed foods: gone It would be a huge lifestyle change for everyone on the planet. Difficult, but certainly viable.
- workthrowaway27 9y ago
  Fossil fuel companies being bankrupt is not viable. Fossil fuels allow the modern world to function. How are you going to get food distributed across the country without fossil fuels? How are you going to make sure critical infrastructure continues to run? Edit: I'm not saying fossil fuel dependency is a good thing, but it's a fact of life, and any realistic proposal for moving away from fossil fuels needs to start with accurately understanding just how important they are.
  - socialist_coder 9y ago
    None of those problems are difficult to solve if we actually care. If we want to move off fossil fuels, we could do so in a couple decades. Also, maybe the fact that we have to distribute food across the country is part of the problem. If food prices in areas that can't grow food nearby go up 100x then people will move.
    - workthrowaway27 9y ago
      Hmmmm, I mostly agree. Except I think our definitions of difficult are different. People are complaining about how hard it is to move out of the Bay Area, which they can't afford to live in. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to move millions of people so they can live closer to food sources. Those people also need jobs so they can afford food, and it's hard or impossible to move industries that are capital intensive or depend on natural resources. It's pretty obvious that eventually we'll have to deal with these problems, but I don't see how society will start the process voluntarily. It's too disruptive and there is no financial incentive to do so. (And even if one country decides to, then they lose out relative to every country that decides not to, so it really has to be an everyone or no one thing).
      - evanwise 9y ago
        There's no financial incentive to fix things? It's almost like we need some kind of revolution to upend the existing system and replace it with one that addresses people's needs directly rather than blindly maximizing financial gains. I feel like I read something about this once...
  - ASalazarMX 9y ago
    > How are you going to get food distributed across the country without fossil fuels You would distribute less and source more locally. No more bananas or mangoes. That was the idea behind the "reduce our standard of living" phrase.
    - workthrowaway27 9y ago