8 ms·

Or, you know - we could not lower our standard of living. It's good to be able to visit friends in the next town over in a few minutes, in any weather, rather

Or, you know - we could not lower our standard of living. It's good to be able to visit friends in the next town over in a few minutes, in any weather, rather than having to walk and then transfer in some distant location. It's good to be able to have our choice of food, rather than having to accept what's left of what the comisar of production allocated to are area. The nice thing about technology is it will allow us to improve the future, rather than having to don the hair shirts of the past.

imgabe 7y ago
Is it good to be able to do those things when it is killing us? Lots of things are "good" in the short term if you ignore long term effects.
adamsea 7y ago
You kind of went from zero to one hundred there - pretty sure what the previous poster mentioned can be accomplished without a communist dystopia and with don’t way to still travel swiftly to visit friends, etc.
KirinDave 7y ago
I don't mean to be rude, but aren't you being a little short sighted here? You can talk about how pleasant these choices are to have, but unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which these guarantees can be delivered. We should strongly consider things like redefining energy security rather rather than wallowing in our base loss aversion. We'll need to develop alternative ways to deliver all of these improvements that don't assign an unpayable environmental debt to our future generations.
- trothamel 7y ago
  I don't think so. I mean, fifteen years ago, electric cars weren't a thing. If we had abandoned cars in favor of bicycles then, Tesla wouldn't have gotten off the ground. And I think I'd rather ride around in a Tesla than on a Schwinn. Basically, I think we have to find climate solutions that allow us to maintain our standard of living. And I think by accepting that's what we need to do, we can and will find those choices, and not divert attention to unpalatable options. I'm an optimist, but the post-enlightenment world routinely justifies such optimism.
  - Jolter 7y ago
    If we had made laws 20 years ago, forbidding combustion engines by 2019, I'm convinced we would have all been driving electric cars by now. The problem electric cars had in the past, that Tesla was the first to overcome, was range. So, we would have driven electric cars that were slightly less convenient than combustion cars, which would have been very tolerable and likely would have helped a great deal with our huge carbon emission. The problem with your line of reasoning is that you seem to pre-suppose that the market has to solve every problem, even the ones that the market created.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > Basically, I think we have to find climate solutions that allow us to maintain our standard of living. And I think by accepting that's what we need to do, we can and will find those choices, and not divert attention to unpalatable options. This is a statement made by a rich and enormously privileged person. You can't deny that most of the world's population lives in poverty without these choices. Your goal is not to push a post-enlightenment techno-optimism despite the couching of things in that framework. Your goal is to avoid losing what you have today. And that's just not realistic. We will all need to redefine what is "normal." Our lifestyles not only can't pass environmental debts forward, they can no longer be defined by the extreme luxury of the top 7 richest nations at the expense of the majority of the world. Both our lives are sustained by what amounts to indentured servitude. As traditional power systems are disrupted by the inability to maintain deep supply chains, people aren't going to bow to your desire for comfort at their expense. Why should they? We absolutely have to keep moving forward with technology that is more efficient and makes energy essentially free in the long term (and minimally rationed in the short term). But we can't do it at the expense of the future while chanting "standard of living" at obvious outcomes we don't like.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      >>>Our lifestyles not only can't pass environmental debts forward, they can no longer be defined by the extreme luxury of the top 7 richest nations at the expense of the majority of the world. Outside of India and China, the developing world doesn't possess the military/technical capabilities to prevent the richest from securing the natural resources to maintain their gilded standard of living. Developing countries will either rapidly industrialize and militarize, becoming yet another part of the problem, or they are likely to be marginalized into migration, collapse, and death. >>>Your goal is to avoid losing what you have today. Which in practical terms applies to every human being, ever, who didn't become an ascetic monk.
- rtpg 7y ago
  > unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which these guarantees can be delivered. The hard truth that makes this stuff even harder to convince is that, deep down, we know society will still function for those of us at the very top. Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power.
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    Yep. That's techno-optimism in a nutshell. All of us rich folks will be just fine, and the poor people will get screwed just like they always do.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > we know society will still function for those of us at the very top Even this seems optimistic to me. It might coast along on inertia for a few decades but once food production and distribution ceases, "rich" gets redefined pretty quickly.
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    "The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people." These are not even close to the worst-case climate scenarios. We don't have enough scientific evidence to ascertain whether the real worst-case scenarios are likely, so reputable scientists avoid talking about them, but we can't rule them out either.
  - jfim 7y ago
    > Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. > The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power. This really depends on the amount of system damage done. Sure, at +1.5°C of global average temperature increase, you'll probably do fine. But at +15°C? What will wealth buy you?
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  What is the point of the human race continuing to exist at all if the standard of living of each future generation is worse than the last? In the long run each of our descendants must live better than the previous, or there is no point to civilization whatsoever.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    If your entire existence is justified by creature comforts and an unyielding demand that nothing ever changes, then isn't technological progress just as disruptive to your ethos? Doesn't that arguement suggest that despotism is self-justifying because it increases the quality of life for the despots? The notion that a temporary setback due to our worldview basing itself on untenable principles is no different than societal collapse is, to me, terribly wrongheaded. If anything, the knowledge and technology we have gained enables us to imagine building something truly better from scaffolding erected by our current, less-than-desirable societal structure and industrial dependence on expensive and toxic energy (made all the more absurd by the fact it is essentially free with modern technology if we are just willing to alter our usage patterns a bit). Maybe we can imagine a world with a place for everyone and an understanding that cooperation and coordination need not only be accomplished via super-massive hierarchies that unjustly benefit only the upper strata.
    - landryraccoon 7y ago
      > If your entire existence is justified by creature comforts and an unyielding demand that nothing ever changes, then isn't technological progress just as disruptive to your ethos? I said that I wanted each generation to live better than the last. From what did you draw the conclusion that this means stasis, or is contradictory to my ethos? Over the past several thousand years, on average, each generation has lived better than the previous, and technological progress is the main reason for that. Since you didn't really grok my basic thesis, I think the rest of your argument is against a strawman.
safgasCVS 7y ago
And there we have it. Why nothing will change. The idea of using less is so alien to how we have been brought up to always have more and more. Suggesting we don’t throw so much food away, not eat 200lb of meat per year or drive cars that do 60mpg instead of hulking suvs that barely crack 15mpg is seen as communism. That hardwiring is overwhelming hard to change

imgabe 7y ago

Is it good to be able to do those things when it is killing us? Lots of things are "good" in the short term if you ignore long term effects.

adamsea 7y ago

You kind of went from zero to one hundred there - pretty sure what the previous poster mentioned can be accomplished without a communist dystopia and with don’t way to still travel swiftly to visit friends, etc.

KirinDave 7y ago

I don't mean to be rude, but aren't you being a little short sighted here? You can talk about how pleasant these choices are to have, but unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which these guarantees can be delivered. We should strongly consider things like redefining energy security rather rather than wallowing in our base loss aversion. We'll need to develop alternative ways to deliver all of these improvements that don't assign an unpayable environmental debt to our future generations.

trothamel 7y ago
I don't think so. I mean, fifteen years ago, electric cars weren't a thing. If we had abandoned cars in favor of bicycles then, Tesla wouldn't have gotten off the ground. And I think I'd rather ride around in a Tesla than on a Schwinn. Basically, I think we have to find climate solutions that allow us to maintain our standard of living. And I think by accepting that's what we need to do, we can and will find those choices, and not divert attention to unpalatable options. I'm an optimist, but the post-enlightenment world routinely justifies such optimism.
- Jolter 7y ago
  If we had made laws 20 years ago, forbidding combustion engines by 2019, I'm convinced we would have all been driving electric cars by now. The problem electric cars had in the past, that Tesla was the first to overcome, was range. So, we would have driven electric cars that were slightly less convenient than combustion cars, which would have been very tolerable and likely would have helped a great deal with our huge carbon emission. The problem with your line of reasoning is that you seem to pre-suppose that the market has to solve every problem, even the ones that the market created.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > Basically, I think we have to find climate solutions that allow us to maintain our standard of living. And I think by accepting that's what we need to do, we can and will find those choices, and not divert attention to unpalatable options. This is a statement made by a rich and enormously privileged person. You can't deny that most of the world's population lives in poverty without these choices. Your goal is not to push a post-enlightenment techno-optimism despite the couching of things in that framework. Your goal is to avoid losing what you have today. And that's just not realistic. We will all need to redefine what is "normal." Our lifestyles not only can't pass environmental debts forward, they can no longer be defined by the extreme luxury of the top 7 richest nations at the expense of the majority of the world. Both our lives are sustained by what amounts to indentured servitude. As traditional power systems are disrupted by the inability to maintain deep supply chains, people aren't going to bow to your desire for comfort at their expense. Why should they? We absolutely have to keep moving forward with technology that is more efficient and makes energy essentially free in the long term (and minimally rationed in the short term). But we can't do it at the expense of the future while chanting "standard of living" at obvious outcomes we don't like.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    >>>Our lifestyles not only can't pass environmental debts forward, they can no longer be defined by the extreme luxury of the top 7 richest nations at the expense of the majority of the world. Outside of India and China, the developing world doesn't possess the military/technical capabilities to prevent the richest from securing the natural resources to maintain their gilded standard of living. Developing countries will either rapidly industrialize and militarize, becoming yet another part of the problem, or they are likely to be marginalized into migration, collapse, and death. >>>Your goal is to avoid losing what you have today. Which in practical terms applies to every human being, ever, who didn't become an ascetic monk.
rtpg 7y ago
> unless we look really hard at what's critical and preserve that immediately, there's not going to be a functional society and industrial framework in which these guarantees can be delivered. The hard truth that makes this stuff even harder to convince is that, deep down, we know society will still function for those of us at the very top. Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power.
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  Yep. That's techno-optimism in a nutshell. All of us rich folks will be just fine, and the poor people will get screwed just like they always do.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > we know society will still function for those of us at the very top Even this seems optimistic to me. It might coast along on inertia for a few decades but once food production and distribution ceases, "rich" gets redefined pretty quickly.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  "The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people." These are not even close to the worst-case climate scenarios. We don't have enough scientific evidence to ascertain whether the real worst-case scenarios are likely, so reputable scientists avoid talking about them, but we can't rule them out either.
- jfim 7y ago
  > Things will get permanently worse but _somehow_ systems will get set up so that those at the top of society will basically live comfortably forever. > The worst case climate scenarios are not actually "game over" for a lot of people. It will cause immense, quasi-permanent damage to a lot of people. But those people don't hold the levers of power. This really depends on the amount of system damage done. Sure, at +1.5°C of global average temperature increase, you'll probably do fine. But at +15°C? What will wealth buy you?
landryraccoon 7y ago
What is the point of the human race continuing to exist at all if the standard of living of each future generation is worse than the last? In the long run each of our descendants must live better than the previous, or there is no point to civilization whatsoever.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  If your entire existence is justified by creature comforts and an unyielding demand that nothing ever changes, then isn't technological progress just as disruptive to your ethos? Doesn't that arguement suggest that despotism is self-justifying because it increases the quality of life for the despots? The notion that a temporary setback due to our worldview basing itself on untenable principles is no different than societal collapse is, to me, terribly wrongheaded. If anything, the knowledge and technology we have gained enables us to imagine building something truly better from scaffolding erected by our current, less-than-desirable societal structure and industrial dependence on expensive and toxic energy (made all the more absurd by the fact it is essentially free with modern technology if we are just willing to alter our usage patterns a bit). Maybe we can imagine a world with a place for everyone and an understanding that cooperation and coordination need not only be accomplished via super-massive hierarchies that unjustly benefit only the upper strata.
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    > If your entire existence is justified by creature comforts and an unyielding demand that nothing ever changes, then isn't technological progress just as disruptive to your ethos? I said that I wanted each generation to live better than the last. From what did you draw the conclusion that this means stasis, or is contradictory to my ethos? Over the past several thousand years, on average, each generation has lived better than the previous, and technological progress is the main reason for that. Since you didn't really grok my basic thesis, I think the rest of your argument is against a strawman.

safgasCVS 7y ago

And there we have it. Why nothing will change. The idea of using less is so alien to how we have been brought up to always have more and more. Suggesting we don’t throw so much food away, not eat 200lb of meat per year or drive cars that do 60mpg instead of hulking suvs that barely crack 15mpg is seen as communism. That hardwiring is overwhelming hard to change