5 ms·

People view technology as a deus ex machina that will enable them to keep doing what they're doing but magically it won't pollute any more. For example, many t

by spodek 9y ago

People view technology as a deus ex machina that will enable them to keep doing what they're doing but magically it won't pollute any more. For example, many think that solar powered planes will enable flying without pollution, which somehow justifies their current flying. The "logic" doesn't work, but they just want a story to help them sleep at night while they read that the arctic is 45 degrees above normal, knowing somewhere in the backs of their minds that the jet fuel they paid to burn to move their share of a plane around the world and back contributed more to that climate change than nearly anyone in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence. Technology has helped humanity out of many problems, as have markets and economic growth. Now we're facing problems that technology, markets, and growth are causing (extinctions, resource depletion, pollution, litter, climate change, etc), Jevon's paradox contributing significantly (the tragedy of the commons and principle agent problem being others) and people haven't realized that applying more of what solved other problems isn't helping but exacerbating current problems. Technology can buy us time, but systems change generally requires changing the goals and beliefs driving the system, which are social and emotional issues, not technological.

coldtea 9y ago
Technology for many serves the role religion used to play. Like God, technology is expected to always provide. This is unscientific, as science understands the notion of local maxima, diminishing returns, and so on, whereas people worshipping technology as some non exhaustive resource, don't. And let's not even go into resource depletion, or the odds and difficulties space travel (e.g. when talking about colonizing Mars and so on), which are waved away because "technology will find a way". The idea that in this or that large-scale problem technology might not find a way, because it depends on limited resources (our cognitive skills, laws of physics limitations, scarcity of materials, energy costs, etc) is not considered at all, even though it's totally possible. The attitude is "surely, since we went from the caves to cars and the moon, we can go anywhere and everywhere".
epistasis 9y ago
> many think that solar powered planes will enable flying without pollution, which somehow justifies their current flying. That's an incredibly silly thing to think, where do you come across such people? >applying more of what solved other problems isn't helping but exacerbating current problems. While possible in principle, I don't see that happening. Installing LED lights doesn't lead to people using more electricity. Driving electric cars doesn't lead to more driving. And it seems that switching jets to synthetic/biofuels won't lead to more flying. Jevon's paradox does not apply everywhere, just where there's supply restricted usage. Further, technology is disconnecting carbon intensity and even energy intensity from GDP. The connection between these was an article of faith for prior generations, both from conservationists and economic conservatives, but it is changing now. We need to rethink plans in light of these changing fundamentals: Jevon's paradox happens many places but not everywhere, and economic activity is going to be disconnected from carbon intensity.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  > That's an incredibly silly thing to think, where do you come across such people? How do you avoid them?
  - epistasis 9y ago
    I talk to strangers on planes, in restaurants and bars, while surfing or skiing, or on a shared lyft line, at conferences, etc. Its not rare for me to eventually be talking about energy and renewable energy because it's one of my favorite topics. Never has anyone brought up a solar plane!
- spodek 9y ago
  > Installing LED lights doesn't lead to people using more electricity. My quick research suggests otherwise. The first result when I searched on "people with led lights use more electricity" was The Lighting Paradox: Cheaper, Efficient LEDs Save Energy, and People Use More https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20082015/lighting-paradox-cheaper-efficient-led-save-energy-use-rises https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20082015/lighting-paradox.... It linked to research results including: "A 2010 study looked at lighting use around the world for the past 300 years as lighting technology improved from whale oil lamps to gas and kerosene lamps to electric incandescent bulbs. The study http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/tsao_jy_2010_04_app_for_light_LEUKOS.pdf http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/tsao_jy_2010_04_app_for_light_..., conducted by researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico found a direct relationship between decreased cost and increased consumption." and "A study published earlier this year in the Journal of Industrial Ecology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12281/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12281/abstra... concluded we will likely see a drop in energy use for residential lighting in the short term, but energy savings will likely be reduced or perhaps eliminated entirely as the amount of lit space increases. "It's not just a question of turning on a light to read a book or to see something on your kitchen counter, you can do lots of stuff with LEDs that you really couldn't do very well with other kinds of artificial light sources," said Theis, a co-author of the study. "They are being incorporated into wearable lighting now, there is just no end to it."" I didn't look up electric cars, but I expect to find similar research there. I'm pretty sure I read in HN that ride sharing is leading to more traffic. I agree Jevon's paradox doesn't happen everywhere, but it looks like it does in your first proposed counterexample. It happens a lot.

by spodek 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

Technology for many serves the role religion used to play. Like God, technology is expected to always provide. This is unscientific, as science understands the notion of local maxima, diminishing returns, and so on, whereas people worshipping technology as some non exhaustive resource, don't. And let's not even go into resource depletion, or the odds and difficulties space travel (e.g. when talking about colonizing Mars and so on), which are waved away because "technology will find a way". The idea that in this or that large-scale problem technology might not find a way, because it depends on limited resources (our cognitive skills, laws of physics limitations, scarcity of materials, energy costs, etc) is not considered at all, even though it's totally possible. The attitude is "surely, since we went from the caves to cars and the moon, we can go anywhere and everywhere".

epistasis 9y ago

> many think that solar powered planes will enable flying without pollution, which somehow justifies their current flying. That's an incredibly silly thing to think, where do you come across such people? >applying more of what solved other problems isn't helping but exacerbating current problems. While possible in principle, I don't see that happening. Installing LED lights doesn't lead to people using more electricity. Driving electric cars doesn't lead to more driving. And it seems that switching jets to synthetic/biofuels won't lead to more flying. Jevon's paradox does not apply everywhere, just where there's supply restricted usage. Further, technology is disconnecting carbon intensity and even energy intensity from GDP. The connection between these was an article of faith for prior generations, both from conservationists and economic conservatives, but it is changing now. We need to rethink plans in light of these changing fundamentals: Jevon's paradox happens many places but not everywhere, and economic activity is going to be disconnected from carbon intensity.

WalterSear 9y ago
> That's an incredibly silly thing to think, where do you come across such people? How do you avoid them?
- epistasis 9y ago
  I talk to strangers on planes, in restaurants and bars, while surfing or skiing, or on a shared lyft line, at conferences, etc. Its not rare for me to eventually be talking about energy and renewable energy because it's one of my favorite topics. Never has anyone brought up a solar plane!
spodek 9y ago
> Installing LED lights doesn't lead to people using more electricity. My quick research suggests otherwise. The first result when I searched on "people with led lights use more electricity" was The Lighting Paradox: Cheaper, Efficient LEDs Save Energy, and People Use More https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20082015/lighting-paradox-cheaper-efficient-led-save-energy-use-rises https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20082015/lighting-paradox.... It linked to research results including: "A 2010 study looked at lighting use around the world for the past 300 years as lighting technology improved from whale oil lamps to gas and kerosene lamps to electric incandescent bulbs. The study http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/tsao_jy_2010_04_app_for_light_LEUKOS.pdf http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/tsao_jy_2010_04_app_for_light_..., conducted by researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico found a direct relationship between decreased cost and increased consumption." and "A study published earlier this year in the Journal of Industrial Ecology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12281/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12281/abstra... concluded we will likely see a drop in energy use for residential lighting in the short term, but energy savings will likely be reduced or perhaps eliminated entirely as the amount of lit space increases. "It's not just a question of turning on a light to read a book or to see something on your kitchen counter, you can do lots of stuff with LEDs that you really couldn't do very well with other kinds of artificial light sources," said Theis, a co-author of the study. "They are being incorporated into wearable lighting now, there is just no end to it."" I didn't look up electric cars, but I expect to find similar research there. I'm pretty sure I read in HN that ride sharing is leading to more traffic. I agree Jevon's paradox doesn't happen everywhere, but it looks like it does in your first proposed counterexample. It happens a lot.