4 ms·

Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley). And

Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley). And it will be technology that saves us in the future. Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
incompatible 7y ago
Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. [1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.
    - ridewinter 7y ago
      Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. Overpopulation prophesy from 50 years ago. At the time 1 in 4 people globally were in famine and author prophecized it would only get worse. Instead global population has doubled while worldwide hunger reduced to 1 in 10, due to creativity and technology. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world...
      - coldtea 7y ago
coldtea 7y ago
>Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. Which is neither here nor there. We care for the part where its habitable and we're on it, not for the part when it was molten lava... >It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley) Not really, we've lived in most of the places we live now and had civilizations 2000 and 5000 and 10000 years ago. And animals more or less like us lived there far more. Technology like fire, stone and iron tools helped made things more palatable, but it's not "only technology" that allows us to live in Africa (heck, tons of tribes lived there even 50-100 years ago with little/no technology), Asia, Europe, etc, and in no way it's only modern technology. >Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain. Perhaps people care more for scientific claims and concrete technologies, and less for magic thinking and faith, which "technological optimism" is, as if we have some certain contract with the universe to find just the right technologies, in the right time, to save us...
titzer 7y ago
I didn't downvote you but I would be tempted to. Imagine you were standing on the sidelines watching Notre Dame burning down and made a similar statement. Meanwhile a fire hydrant and fire hose were nearby, unused. And twenty bystanders like you were standing there facing the other way, unaware, chatting about trivia while (unknowingly) leaking gasoline out their butts right onto it. Your comment would be massively misplaced and probably overall harmful in the grand scheme of things. We need to fight this.
- ridewinter 7y ago
  Pretty sure what I’m saying is to use the dang fire hydrant in addition to removing unnecessary wood from the cathedral.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

incompatible 7y ago

Humans already colonised most of the Earth in the Paleolithic, using the minimal technology of hunter-gatherers.

ridewinter 7y ago
Yes, we’ve always used technology to alter our environments and we’ll need to continue to do so. The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. We’ve only put minimal effort into geo-engineering solutions, but even with that minimal effort there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. [1] https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-climate-trillion-trees.html [2] https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-rock-on-farms-could-improve-soil-and-lower-co₂/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/spreading-crushed-ro...
- incompatible 7y ago
  Alternatively, there may be no political progress and the technological ideas never get implemented (or only when it's too late to do any good).
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The explanations in the doomsday articles here assume no technological progress. If part of your house is on fire, it will burn completely in, say, 5 hours, and you don't have the technology to stop the fire, assuming that "all will be OK" because you'll invent something in the meantime is idiotic. It's also not science (science is actively working on a problem). Optimism of this kind is just wishful thinking that happens to concern scientific breakthroughs. Soberly speaking: - We might not find the necessary breakthroughs in time, same way we still don't have AI, human-like robot servants, flying cars, cold fusion, miracle drugs, and all kinds of other stuff we'd "surely have" or that's always "20 years in the future". - If we find some breakthrough, it might need too much time, energy, resources to put into action. There's no guarantee from the universe that any technology we find is also immediately (or timely) applicable. - A solution might have downsides (e.g social, economic, etc) for which there might be no consensus, political will, easy way to sell to masses or easy way to convince elites... - A solution might require coordination across nations, which might be the inverse of what we will get (every country for itself, wars over diminishing resources, and so on). In fact already we see rifts into global coordination (from the China trade war, to Brexit and so on). All of those are real concerns, it's not just "technology will save us", as if it owes us... >there’s been some good ideas, such as planting 130 trees per person [1], olovine rocks on beaches [2], and basalt dusting of farmland [3]. LOL.
  - ridewinter 7y ago
    Not “technology will save us” - human creativity can save us. It has in the past and survival will require our creativity infinitely into the future. You may laugh but let’s tslk again in 30 years. When avg temps rise more than the 1 degree they have so far, political attitudes will change. Overpopulation prophesy from 50 years ago. At the time 1 in 4 people globally were in famine and author prophecized it would only get worse. Instead global population has doubled while worldwide hunger reduced to 1 in 10, due to creativity and technology. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-world...
    - coldtea 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Earth has always been uninhabitable for the most part. Which is neither here nor there. We care for the part where its habitable and we're on it, not for the part when it was molten lava... >It’s only technology that allows us to live where we are (unless you live in the great Rift Valley) Not really, we've lived in most of the places we live now and had civilizations 2000 and 5000 and 10000 years ago. And animals more or less like us lived there far more. Technology like fire, stone and iron tools helped made things more palatable, but it's not "only technology" that allows us to live in Africa (heck, tons of tribes lived there even 50-100 years ago with little/no technology), Asia, Europe, etc, and in no way it's only modern technology. >Edit: downvoted for technology optimism on this site?? Please explain. Perhaps people care more for scientific claims and concrete technologies, and less for magic thinking and faith, which "technological optimism" is, as if we have some certain contract with the universe to find just the right technologies, in the right time, to save us...

titzer 7y ago

I didn't downvote you but I would be tempted to. Imagine you were standing on the sidelines watching Notre Dame burning down and made a similar statement. Meanwhile a fire hydrant and fire hose were nearby, unused. And twenty bystanders like you were standing there facing the other way, unaware, chatting about trivia while (unknowingly) leaking gasoline out their butts right onto it. Your comment would be massively misplaced and probably overall harmful in the grand scheme of things. We need to fight this.

ridewinter 7y ago
Pretty sure what I’m saying is to use the dang fire hydrant in addition to removing unnecessary wood from the cathedral.