4 ms·

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 m

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
    Okay, but what would that look like? How do you go from where we are now to there without massive disruption. How do you start feeding NYC locally? It's way harder to de-industrialize than to industrialize. A lot of our cities are only viable because of the dividend from fossil fuels.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Obviously, the first step would be to repeal the second amendment. Since that train ain't leaving the station, the threatened tyranny, while lovely to dream about, isn't so likely.
      - ci5er 9y ago
        I missed the context of your context switch. It reads as if you are saying that 'we' need to repeal the second so that 'we' can be loaded up and forcibly moved by our societal masters (with little resistance) Is that correct?
        jessaustin 9y ago
        I could have been writing ironically... if so it would have been to highlight the silliness of grandparent's "when I am king everyone will do the right thing also that will have no side effects I'm neglecting to consider right now" scenario. Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios.
        ci5er 9y ago
        > Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios. Agreed. I had a lawyer-gf at one point in my past, and she executed some variant of this on me every time a vacuous proposal left my mouth. Any proposal at all, really. But, I did not understand the intent behind what you were writing. Can you restate this for those of us slower members of your audience?
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  I'm not saying fossil fuel dependency is a good thing, but it's a fact of life It's easy to believe they are utterly indispensable. They are just so convenient, and we love to convince ourselves convenience is really necessity. But would the world truly collapse into the dark ages if fossil fuels petered out in the next decade, and we no longer had that option? How are you going to transport food? You ignore that food was shipped around a long time before fossil fuels. More of a pain, of course, but we did it all the same.
  - workthrowaway27 9y ago
    Yes, but society was structured under different assumptions then. I live in a city in the desert. There wouldn't be cities in the desert (with modern living standards) if we didn't have fossil fuels to get food, building supplies, electrical wiring, etc. out here. Yes, society can function without fossil fuels, but probably not with the same number of people, and certainly not with the same standard of living.
    - ci5er 9y ago
      And not in coastal California. ..
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Sure, we could go back oxen and agriculture without fertilizer or pesticides. How many billion people are you willing to see starve to make that happen?
    - socialist_coder 9y ago
      As many as it takes to have a sustainable culture. If we wait until there is no topsoil left, even more billions will die, and it won't be in a controlled and purposeful way like it would be if we do it now. Hell, maybe even no one has to die from starvation. Maybe just limiting births would do the trick. Or any other number of ideas that don't involve mass murder or mass starvation or going back to 200 year old farming methods.

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
  Okay, but what would that look like? How do you go from where we are now to there without massive disruption. How do you start feeding NYC locally? It's way harder to de-industrialize than to industrialize. A lot of our cities are only viable because of the dividend from fossil fuels.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Obviously, the first step would be to repeal the second amendment. Since that train ain't leaving the station, the threatened tyranny, while lovely to dream about, isn't so likely.
    - ci5er 9y ago
      I missed the context of your context switch. It reads as if you are saying that 'we' need to repeal the second so that 'we' can be loaded up and forcibly moved by our societal masters (with little resistance) Is that correct?
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        I could have been writing ironically... if so it would have been to highlight the silliness of grandparent's "when I am king everyone will do the right thing also that will have no side effects I'm neglecting to consider right now" scenario. Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios.
        ci5er 9y ago
        > Really, someone ought to do that for all such scenarios. Agreed. I had a lawyer-gf at one point in my past, and she executed some variant of this on me every time a vacuous proposal left my mouth. Any proposal at all, really. But, I did not understand the intent behind what you were writing. Can you restate this for those of us slower members of your audience?
sliverstorm 9y ago
I'm not saying fossil fuel dependency is a good thing, but it's a fact of life It's easy to believe they are utterly indispensable. They are just so convenient, and we love to convince ourselves convenience is really necessity. But would the world truly collapse into the dark ages if fossil fuels petered out in the next decade, and we no longer had that option? How are you going to transport food? You ignore that food was shipped around a long time before fossil fuels. More of a pain, of course, but we did it all the same.
- workthrowaway27 9y ago
  Yes, but society was structured under different assumptions then. I live in a city in the desert. There wouldn't be cities in the desert (with modern living standards) if we didn't have fossil fuels to get food, building supplies, electrical wiring, etc. out here. Yes, society can function without fossil fuels, but probably not with the same number of people, and certainly not with the same standard of living.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    And not in coastal California. ..
- gozur88 9y ago
  Sure, we could go back oxen and agriculture without fertilizer or pesticides. How many billion people are you willing to see starve to make that happen?
  - socialist_coder 9y ago
    As many as it takes to have a sustainable culture. If we wait until there is no topsoil left, even more billions will die, and it won't be in a controlled and purposeful way like it would be if we do it now. Hell, maybe even no one has to die from starvation. Maybe just limiting births would do the trick. Or any other number of ideas that don't involve mass murder or mass starvation or going back to 200 year old farming methods.