3 ms·
> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we
by 01100011 7y ago
> you have to decouple economic growth from increased consumption of natural resources
Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less. If it keeps up, and we slowdown procreation, I see no reason why it won't drive resource usage down long term.
I mean, I completely disagree with the premise that we must consume non-renewable resources to generate wealth, but assuming it is true I think we've come a long way in changing that and the future looks even better.
- rebuilder 7y agoYou can only increase efficiency so far. I do agree that a reduction in population would result in lower resource usage, but that's an economic slowdown, i.e. the opposite of growth.
- username444 7y agoIsn't economic retraction the opposite of economic growth?
- rebuilder 7y agoYou're right, that's what I meant to say.
- hannob 7y ago> Hasn't technology generally been heading in this direction? It seems we are constantly doing more with less Actually no, we haven't and we don't. Carbon emissions are still growing. Classic mistake: You're confusing relative and absolute reductions. We have reduced relative ecological impact a lot, but overall impact has been growing along the way.
- fvdessen 7y agoCarbon emissions are decreasing in Europe despite economic growth. Nature is getting in better shape as well.
- hnhg 7y agoCan you explain how nature is getting in better shape? Everything I have read contradicts your statement.
- Mirioron 7y agoThere's more forest in Europe now than a hundred years ago.
- BlueTemplar 7y agoWell, Europe (and US) also outsourced most of their dirties industries to China...
- undreren 7y agoThis is also called Jevon’s paradox: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- EForEndeavour 7y agoToday I learned! Pedantic corrections: - It's the Jevons Paradox (not Jevon's), named after William Stanley Jevons - non-mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- drorco 7y agoOne way technology can really decrease consumption is by turning humans to machines. If you are essentially a CPU, your energy consumption would likely be very low yet your computational power and lifespan could be much higher. This way earth could support a much higher quantity of "humans", being mostly electric, it could even leave the confinements of earth, this way freeing earth. The only challenge left is to maintain cognitive growth drives when you're based on electricity, rather than hormones among other chemicals.
- BlueTemplar 7y agoThis is only viable if you're willing to sacrifice the biosphere in the process.