3 ms·

Whatever the solution is to global warming and the looming ecological crisis, I don't believe it lies in more technology. The only viable solution in my opinio

Whatever the solution is to global warming and the looming ecological crisis, I don't believe it lies in more technology. The only viable solution in my opinion is for people to realise that our planet's resources are finite and that we need to accept this fact. AS others here have stated, moving from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one is the only way forward. Sustainability and technological startups are diametrically opposed.

m_mueller 8y ago
I think we cannot stop now. Current CO2 levels plus the momentum in world economy is such that we need to actively digg out in order to survive. Becoming progress averse now would be disastrous since even with the highest affordable tech we live far from sustainable.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  Redefine progress then. Taking care of your environment is not being progress averse, especially if your survival depends on the health of your ecosystem.
ghosthamlet 8y ago
If world will end next week, we should just stop global growth, stop all the unnecessary human events, stop all the unnecessary producing, go home with families, only do the most necessary things. For earth, for human beings, for ourself, it will be enough and worth.
neolefty 8y ago
That's a fundamental debate that is worth having! On the other side of the argument: US economic growth has decoupled from CO2 output in the last few years — industrial output & productivity has risen steadily while CO2 emissions have remained basically flat. Scenarios I can see: 1. Reduce our economy by a factor of 10-100 — probably our population as well. Only way that can happen quickly is a catastrophe unparalleled in history. 2. Improve our technology to be carbon-neutral, retain the same population, maybe even improve our standard of living in the process. The question is: is 2. possible? If it is, I prefer it. If it isn't, that really sucks, and there's merit to the anti-natalist strategy. I happen to think it is possible though — technology and policy and effort can get us to a sustainable energy economy.
spyckie2 8y ago
Wow, this is really skewed towards the 1%, even if you meant it the other way. You do know that the global middle class yearly income is 1-3k a year, right? That's probably less than a typical American food budget. It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. It's also naive to think it's easier to redistribute wealth globally than it is to create technology. Redistribution only comes through bloodshed. At least with technology you can build it through hard work, effort, and ingenuity.
- schiffern 8y ago
  > It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. I see the old "[technological] man's burden" is as magnanimous as ever. ;) Why is the rest of the world desperately poor? It's absurd to imagine that it's because the free enterprise West wants to help that 90%, but is held back by... anti-growth activists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality colonialism (aka stealing from that 90%) never ended, it just got better PR and privatization. > Redistribution only comes through bloodshed. Agreed, and most of the wealth redistribution in the world today is upward (as 'the rich getting richer' implies). Since we're having the consequent bloodshed anyway, why not redistribute wealth in the other direction to maximize hedonic good? Warren Buffett put it best: "There's class warfare all right, but it's my class — the rich class — that's making war, and we're winning." > At least with technology you can build it through hard work, effort, and ingenuity. ...implying[1] technology doesn't cause bloodshed. Talk about a skewed perspective! Just to arbitrarily pick a (hardly unique) example, what do Amazonian tribespeople think of technology? What have their experiences been? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/uncontacted-tribes-illegal-gold-brazil/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/uncontacted-trib... Why was that gold suddenly economical to prospect/mine? Technology. How were these people massacred so efficiently? Technology. Why was there such an enormous power imbalance between these two populations? Technology. "Technology" may look fine-and-dandy to the person behind the keyboard (especially for those who personify it by unconsciously imagining that 'technology' pays their salary), but never forget that all our technological artifacts were ripped out of the ground at some point, typically after using third-world government corruption to steal the land from its former inhabitants. We're merely rich enough that we can push that devastation "far, far away." [1] or perhaps I'm misinterpreting, and you're just saying that technology brings hard work in addition to bloodshed?

m_mueller 8y ago

I think we cannot stop now. Current CO2 levels plus the momentum in world economy is such that we need to actively digg out in order to survive. Becoming progress averse now would be disastrous since even with the highest affordable tech we live far from sustainable.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Redefine progress then. Taking care of your environment is not being progress averse, especially if your survival depends on the health of your ecosystem.

ghosthamlet 8y ago

If world will end next week, we should just stop global growth, stop all the unnecessary human events, stop all the unnecessary producing, go home with families, only do the most necessary things. For earth, for human beings, for ourself, it will be enough and worth.

neolefty 8y ago

That's a fundamental debate that is worth having! On the other side of the argument: US economic growth has decoupled from CO2 output in the last few years — industrial output & productivity has risen steadily while CO2 emissions have remained basically flat. Scenarios I can see: 1. Reduce our economy by a factor of 10-100 — probably our population as well. Only way that can happen quickly is a catastrophe unparalleled in history. 2. Improve our technology to be carbon-neutral, retain the same population, maybe even improve our standard of living in the process. The question is: is 2. possible? If it is, I prefer it. If it isn't, that really sucks, and there's merit to the anti-natalist strategy. I happen to think it is possible though — technology and policy and effort can get us to a sustainable energy economy.

spyckie2 8y ago

Wow, this is really skewed towards the 1%, even if you meant it the other way. You do know that the global middle class yearly income is 1-3k a year, right? That's probably less than a typical American food budget. It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. It's also naive to think it's easier to redistribute wealth globally than it is to create technology. Redistribution only comes through bloodshed. At least with technology you can build it through hard work, effort, and ingenuity.

schiffern 8y ago
> It's fine if you want the US to stop growing. But the rest of the world would desperately like to grow more. And that's 90% of the world's population. I see the old "[technological] man's burden" is as magnanimous as ever. ;) Why is the rest of the world desperately poor? It's absurd to imagine that it's because the free enterprise West wants to help that 90%, but is held back by... anti-growth activists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality colonialism (aka stealing from that 90%) never ended, it just got better PR and privatization. > Redistribution only comes through bloodshed. Agreed, and most of the wealth redistribution in the world today is upward (as 'the rich getting richer' implies). Since we're having the consequent bloodshed anyway, why not redistribute wealth in the other direction to maximize hedonic good? Warren Buffett put it best: "There's class warfare all right, but it's my class — the rich class — that's making war, and we're winning." > At least with technology you can build it through hard work, effort, and ingenuity. ...implying[1] technology doesn't cause bloodshed. Talk about a skewed perspective! Just to arbitrarily pick a (hardly unique) example, what do Amazonian tribespeople think of technology? What have their experiences been? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/uncontacted-tribes-illegal-gold-brazil/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/uncontacted-trib... Why was that gold suddenly economical to prospect/mine? Technology. How were these people massacred so efficiently? Technology. Why was there such an enormous power imbalance between these two populations? Technology. "Technology" may look fine-and-dandy to the person behind the keyboard (especially for those who personify it by unconsciously imagining that 'technology' pays their salary), but never forget that all our technological artifacts were ripped out of the ground at some point, typically after using third-world government corruption to steal the land from its former inhabitants. We're merely rich enough that we can push that devastation "far, far away." [1] or perhaps I'm misinterpreting, and you're just saying that technology brings hard work in addition to bloodshed?