3 ms·
...assuming there is a technological solution. My core argument is that "endless growth = good" is an ideological problem, and it requires an ideological solut
by schiffern 8y ago
...assuming there is a technological solution.
My core argument is that "endless growth = good" is an ideological problem, and it requires an ideological solution. Without changing the goal of the system, any tech solution will inevitable be used simply to enable more growth (see: Jevon's Paradox).
Here's part of a talk by seminal systems theorist Donella Meadows, who explains it better than I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc&t=13m55s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIoego-xVc&t=13m55s
>There's no need to attack technical solutions as an epidemic on society.
We do need to be realistic about technology, including its downsides. I'm countering the one-sided perspective of technology as bloodless hard work & ingenuity. Perhaps true for the colonizer, but not the colonized.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoSo in the end, we need both. We need technological solutions to undo the damage we've done to the climate. Trees won't sequeseter CO₂ fast enough by themselves. We need ideological solutions, so that people don't cancel the gains of technological solutions with increased growth and waste. And then we need political/economic solutions like carbon tax to redirect money towards technological solutions, and minds towards ideological and lifestyle ones. Really, we shouldn't be fighting over which kind of solution we need, because neither is sufficient in isolation. We need them all. Let's focus instead on fighting opposition to any and all effective solutions for saving people.
- schiffern 8y agoThank you, well said.