5 ms·

Ah yes, the good old days. When manufacturing jobs were plentiful and American production was second to none. It’s important to remember the cost of what made

by vatys 7y ago

Ah yes, the good old days. When manufacturing jobs were plentiful and American production was second to none. It’s important to remember the cost of what made America “great” back then.

alacombe 7y ago
Nothing changed, beside world-scale NIMBY'ism. The choice to be made is simple, either lower life standards to Bangladesh level (the only level sustainable at +7 billions inhabitants) or pay the unsustainable price. No amount of tech or virtue signaling is gonna change that fact. I made my choice.
- bjelkeman-again 7y ago
  Which was?
- hanniabu 7y ago
  I have no idea what you're even saying or inferring.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    He's saying the same photos can be taken today, just not here.
  - gameswithgo 7y ago
    he is saying the first world lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable with a multi billion person population on one earth sized planet and he is probably correct.
    - jchw 7y ago
      Well, I think it’s clear that the prospect of deep lifestyle changes, specifically downgrades, will never prove very popular. Especially since upper class lifestyles are not likely to change nearly as much as working class. But also, measures to control population strike deeply dystopian chords, and result in similarly adverse reactions. I think most people realize things have long not been sustainable... but it isn’t obvious what to do about that. I think that’s why the focus has been on technology that can buy us more time. Anything else that could help is probably not gonna happen in short order...
      - slfnflctd 7y ago
        As long as so many people still consider it a personal affront to even hear the slightest suggestion that one of the easiest things they can do to contribute to a better world is simply eat less meat, I don't have a whole lot of hope.
        alacombe 7y ago
        Really subjective as well. It's just as easy to argue that calories dense meat/fat is more efficient that calories starved greens or fattening processed carbs.
        CamperBob2 7y ago
        This problem will fix itself soon enough when synthmeat reaches its tipping point. At some point on the price/quality curve, social signal theory will kick in, and it will become unacceptable to kill actual animals for meat. We'll save a lot of water when that happens, which isn't a bad thing regardless of your position on animal rights. Civilization isn't a zero-sum game. Everyone, without exception, who has ever claimed otherwise, has been wrong. In order for someone living in the middle of Africa or India to live better, you and I don't have to live worse.
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        > measures to control population strike deeply dystopian chords This is only a matter of time though. What happens when we hit 10B, then 15B? This idea will start to gain more appeal as time goes on.
        jchw 7y ago
        To be fair: are we going to hit 15B? With the rate population growth is declining, I don’t think that is a guarantee anymore. I’m not saying I disagree FWIW. Just saying I think the problem is nearly intractable; humanity as a whole may literally rather see the end of itself than make lifestyle concessions.
      - fallingfrog 7y ago
  - fragsworth 7y ago
    They're saying we moved the problem to India/China. And it's true, to some extent.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Presumably the fact that we’re still consuming resources faster than the earth can replenish them. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
- benj111 7y ago
  I think we can do better than that. Healthcare doesn't have major impacts on the environment. Flushing toilets are probably a net benefit for the environment. This [1] suggests we can all live like China, but we can probably do a little better if we remove the coal power stations and use that co2 budget for something else. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712
jhayward 7y ago
Please provide some support for your assertion that environmental laws are the reason for the decline of US manufacturing. In my view this is just a right-wing talking point to try to destroy our ability to keep clean the commons in a working economic system.
melling 7y ago
I’m sure we could’ve had cleaner air and water with manufacturing jobs. However, we sent many of those jobs to Mexico and China where they have fewer environmental and safety regulations. We gutted blue collar jobs and created the current populist environment because we didn’t want to pay fair wages. In addition, the large increase in pollution and CO2 in China (largest producer by far) is because Europe and the US exported steel mills, factories, etc.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
markmark 7y ago
Even if the US hadn't changed its environmental laws, your industry would have moved production to places with lower wages.

by vatys 7y ago

Ah yes, the good old days. When manufacturing jobs were plentiful and American production was second to none. It’s important to remember the cost of what made America “great” back then.

alacombe 7y ago

Nothing changed, beside world-scale NIMBY'ism. The choice to be made is simple, either lower life standards to Bangladesh level (the only level sustainable at +7 billions inhabitants) or pay the unsustainable price. No amount of tech or virtue signaling is gonna change that fact. I made my choice.

bjelkeman-again 7y ago
Which was?
hanniabu 7y ago
I have no idea what you're even saying or inferring.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  He's saying the same photos can be taken today, just not here.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  he is saying the first world lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable with a multi billion person population on one earth sized planet and he is probably correct.
  - jchw 7y ago
    Well, I think it’s clear that the prospect of deep lifestyle changes, specifically downgrades, will never prove very popular. Especially since upper class lifestyles are not likely to change nearly as much as working class. But also, measures to control population strike deeply dystopian chords, and result in similarly adverse reactions. I think most people realize things have long not been sustainable... but it isn’t obvious what to do about that. I think that’s why the focus has been on technology that can buy us more time. Anything else that could help is probably not gonna happen in short order...
    - slfnflctd 7y ago
      As long as so many people still consider it a personal affront to even hear the slightest suggestion that one of the easiest things they can do to contribute to a better world is simply eat less meat, I don't have a whole lot of hope.
      - alacombe 7y ago
        Really subjective as well. It's just as easy to argue that calories dense meat/fat is more efficient that calories starved greens or fattening processed carbs.
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        This problem will fix itself soon enough when synthmeat reaches its tipping point. At some point on the price/quality curve, social signal theory will kick in, and it will become unacceptable to kill actual animals for meat. We'll save a lot of water when that happens, which isn't a bad thing regardless of your position on animal rights. Civilization isn't a zero-sum game. Everyone, without exception, who has ever claimed otherwise, has been wrong. In order for someone living in the middle of Africa or India to live better, you and I don't have to live worse.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      > measures to control population strike deeply dystopian chords This is only a matter of time though. What happens when we hit 10B, then 15B? This idea will start to gain more appeal as time goes on.
      - jchw 7y ago
        To be fair: are we going to hit 15B? With the rate population growth is declining, I don’t think that is a guarantee anymore. I’m not saying I disagree FWIW. Just saying I think the problem is nearly intractable; humanity as a whole may literally rather see the end of itself than make lifestyle concessions.
    - fallingfrog 7y ago
- fragsworth 7y ago
  They're saying we moved the problem to India/China. And it's true, to some extent.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Presumably the fact that we’re still consuming resources faster than the earth can replenish them. https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
benj111 7y ago
I think we can do better than that. Healthcare doesn't have major impacts on the environment. Flushing toilets are probably a net benefit for the environment. This [1] suggests we can all live like China, but we can probably do a little better if we remove the coal power stations and use that co2 budget for something else. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712

jhayward 7y ago

Please provide some support for your assertion that environmental laws are the reason for the decline of US manufacturing. In my view this is just a right-wing talking point to try to destroy our ability to keep clean the commons in a working economic system.

melling 7y ago

I’m sure we could’ve had cleaner air and water with manufacturing jobs. However, we sent many of those jobs to Mexico and China where they have fewer environmental and safety regulations. We gutted blue collar jobs and created the current populist environment because we didn’t want to pay fair wages. In addition, the large increase in pollution and CO2 in China (largest producer by far) is because Europe and the US exported steel mills, factories, etc.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

markmark 7y ago

Even if the US hadn't changed its environmental laws, your industry would have moved production to places with lower wages.