3 ms·

For me the pessimism stems from the fact that having 8 billion or so well off consumers is not environmentally sustainable. We are polluting on a grand scale.

For me the pessimism stems from the fact that having 8 billion or so well off consumers is not environmentally sustainable. We are polluting on a grand scale. Plastics, toxins, and trash are doing great harm to the environment. Right now it appears we are headed for a crash. Maybe not in my lifetime but within 100 years or so will the planet be so polluted that living in it is hellish?

kijin 9y ago
This assumes that humanity will not find a way to reduce, recycle, convert, or find better uses for trash in the next 100 years. Coming from a country where nearly everything that can be recycled gets recycled, and having seen this change take place in a span of less than 30 years, your assumption does seem a bit too pessimistic. The same kind of pessimistic assumption underlines the ridiculously high death tolls that people often predict will be caused by global warming. Most of those deaths are attributed to infectious diseases such as malaria. This assumes that humanity will not find a way to prevent and/or cure such diseases on a large scale in the next 100 years.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The reverse is also true. You assume humanity will find a way to deal with the trash. Not just the trash that will be made but also the trash that has already found it's way into the oceans. The number of people who recycle a lot is quite small in relation to the total population. Is the increase in recycling enough to offset the increase in trash and toxins? I'm skeptical that this will happen soon enough. Since you come from a country where nearly everything is recycled I'm going to assume you come from a wealthy country. If so then you, yes you, consume far more than most humans. You are a drain on the resources of the planet. Your consumption leads to strip mining, deforestation, and industrial pollution. This damage has been conveniently shipped off to poor regions of the world but the ultimate cause is consumers like you and I. Your recycling hardly makes up for the damage that is done for your consumption. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 From the above article: “If the levels of consumption that...the most affluent people enjoy today were replicated across even half of the roughly 9 billion people projected to be on the planet in 2050, the impact on our water supply, air quality, forests, climate, biological diversity, and human health would be severe.”
  - kijin 9y ago
    No, I don't assume that humanity will find a way to fix all those problems in a timely manner. I'm pointing out that both are assumptions pulled out of thin air, and that we should not be too quick to get all pessimistic (or optimistic) based on mere assumptions. People 100 years ago could not have had imagined the kind of technological and sociopolitical changes that we take for granted now. What more right do we have to make assumptions about what we'll have 100 years from now? Heck, I can't even trust anyone who says what will happen 10 years from now, whether good or bad. Let's stop pretending to be prophets and actually start working on the problems. Only then will we know which of the assumptions were correct.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      It's not prophecy. It's a fact that at current trends things are looking dire. The trend may change but only if people heed the warning. I don't know what will happen in 100 years. I do know that without a significant change in behavior/technology soon then a crash is coming.
      - kijin 9y ago
        100 years ago, some people made dire predictions that most cities would be buried in 9 feet of horse shit if people didn't act quickly to fix their reliance on horse-drawn carriages. A quarter century later, cars replaced horse-drawn carriages, averting the horse shit crisis. Not because people heeded the warning, but simply because cars were faster and sexier. Of course, we've just traded CO2 for horse shit, and now we've got a different problem. If history is any indication of what will happen in the future, we'll probably trade some other type of pollution for CO2 this century, and then another type.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        Hence, the “current trends” portion of what I wrote. Also, history is not a guide in this matter. The creation of new tech depends on knowledge and it is not predictable whether or not enough new knowledge will be gained to offset current trends. It’s possibke but looking to the past is not an indicati9n that this will happpen in a particular area. Also, I was talking about solely about CO2. I was talking about deforestation, massive dumping of toxins, plastics and other forms of waste. It is without a doubt that at current trends humanity’s future is dire,

kijin 9y ago

This assumes that humanity will not find a way to reduce, recycle, convert, or find better uses for trash in the next 100 years. Coming from a country where nearly everything that can be recycled gets recycled, and having seen this change take place in a span of less than 30 years, your assumption does seem a bit too pessimistic. The same kind of pessimistic assumption underlines the ridiculously high death tolls that people often predict will be caused by global warming. Most of those deaths are attributed to infectious diseases such as malaria. This assumes that humanity will not find a way to prevent and/or cure such diseases on a large scale in the next 100 years.

yequalsx 9y ago
The reverse is also true. You assume humanity will find a way to deal with the trash. Not just the trash that will be made but also the trash that has already found it's way into the oceans. The number of people who recycle a lot is quite small in relation to the total population. Is the increase in recycling enough to offset the increase in trash and toxins? I'm skeptical that this will happen soon enough. Since you come from a country where nearly everything is recycled I'm going to assume you come from a wealthy country. If so then you, yes you, consume far more than most humans. You are a drain on the resources of the planet. Your consumption leads to strip mining, deforestation, and industrial pollution. This damage has been conveniently shipped off to poor regions of the world but the ultimate cause is consumers like you and I. Your recycling hardly makes up for the damage that is done for your consumption. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810 From the above article: “If the levels of consumption that...the most affluent people enjoy today were replicated across even half of the roughly 9 billion people projected to be on the planet in 2050, the impact on our water supply, air quality, forests, climate, biological diversity, and human health would be severe.”
- kijin 9y ago
  No, I don't assume that humanity will find a way to fix all those problems in a timely manner. I'm pointing out that both are assumptions pulled out of thin air, and that we should not be too quick to get all pessimistic (or optimistic) based on mere assumptions. People 100 years ago could not have had imagined the kind of technological and sociopolitical changes that we take for granted now. What more right do we have to make assumptions about what we'll have 100 years from now? Heck, I can't even trust anyone who says what will happen 10 years from now, whether good or bad. Let's stop pretending to be prophets and actually start working on the problems. Only then will we know which of the assumptions were correct.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    It's not prophecy. It's a fact that at current trends things are looking dire. The trend may change but only if people heed the warning. I don't know what will happen in 100 years. I do know that without a significant change in behavior/technology soon then a crash is coming.
    - kijin 9y ago
      100 years ago, some people made dire predictions that most cities would be buried in 9 feet of horse shit if people didn't act quickly to fix their reliance on horse-drawn carriages. A quarter century later, cars replaced horse-drawn carriages, averting the horse shit crisis. Not because people heeded the warning, but simply because cars were faster and sexier. Of course, we've just traded CO2 for horse shit, and now we've got a different problem. If history is any indication of what will happen in the future, we'll probably trade some other type of pollution for CO2 this century, and then another type.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        Hence, the “current trends” portion of what I wrote. Also, history is not a guide in this matter. The creation of new tech depends on knowledge and it is not predictable whether or not enough new knowledge will be gained to offset current trends. It’s possibke but looking to the past is not an indicati9n that this will happpen in a particular area. Also, I was talking about solely about CO2. I was talking about deforestation, massive dumping of toxins, plastics and other forms of waste. It is without a doubt that at current trends humanity’s future is dire,