4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > 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. Without re-examining our priorities quickly and changing our economies, this fate awaits everyone. > Which in practical terms applies to every human being, ever, who didn't become an ascetic monk. No, not everyone is a Reactionary.
  - candiodari 7y ago
    > Without re-examining our priorities quickly and changing our economies, this fate awaits everyone. I don't get this way of thinking. This isn't the first time people thought that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism They were wrong then, they will be wrong now. Why do I think that ? Because we are already far over the carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels. Either technology will save us or your doom scenario WILL happen. In other words, you could be wrong or right. If you're wrong, then of course we should only take limited steps to change. If you're right and we cannot adapt, then we're fucked unless we kill something like 90% of the human race (exact number doesn't really matter, even if it's 50%). Any event that kills 90% of the human race is going to be as bad as just waiting for the "migration, collapse and death", whether we engineer it or not. So you're wrong. Not just because there's a range of technologies that could save our ass, but also because "changing our priorities" is no different from "migration, collapse, and death" at this point. BUT on the plus side: stabilization is happening, without us having to do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_popula... World population is on the path to peaking at around 8.5 billion humans and then dropping to steady state at around 7.5 billion. That's our current guess. Barring a great war or something like that, that's what will happen. Animals come with a built-in "carrying capacity guesser", and populations end up very close to the exact STABLE carrying capacity of whatever environment they find themselves in. And while it's possible to disrupt this (famously the case of rabbits and cats in artificial environments without good enough places to hide for the rabbits, but abundant food availability), shouldn't our default assumption be that there clearly is a mechanism controlling human population size, and that it's not in fact screwing up ? That that 8.5/7.5 billion number is in fact a pretty good guess ? As the history of Yellowstone park illustrates, humans have done far more damage attempting to control population sizes of animals than we have just letting them be.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      > They were wrong then, they will be wrong now. Why do I think that ? Because we are already far over the carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels. Either technology will save us or your doom scenario WILL happen. In other words, you could be wrong or right. If you're wrong, then of course we should only take limited steps to change. If you're right and we cannot adapt, then we're fucked unless we kill something like 90% of the human race (exact number doesn't really matter, even if it's 50%). Any event that kills 90% of the human race is going to be as bad as just waiting for the "migration, collapse and death", whether we engineer it or not. I'm quite certain you've misread me because you seem to be suggesting I'm not advocating action and a possible stable outcome. I am. What I'm saying is that making no changes in the face of new data will simply continue to ignore the reality we're increasingly convinced of: that climate change is going to collapse every aspect of modern society unless we react swiftly and broadly to counteract it and its effects. Suggesting this is Malthusian in nature is wrong. > So you're wrong. Not just because there's a range of technologies that could save our ass, but also because "changing our priorities" is no different from "migration, collapse, and death" at this point. If we refuse to apply said technologies, then we're in trouble. We might refuse if, for example, men are afraid recycling makes them look effeminate or because solar power is unpopular with people convinced oil industry=freedom. > Animals come with a built-in "carrying capacity guesser", and populations end up very close to the exact STABLE carrying capacity of whatever environment they find themselves in. ... What? No, they don't. Any species that doesn't reach equilibrium dies. > shouldn't our default assumption be that there clearly is a mechanism controlling human population size, and that it's not in fact screwing up ? What a weird argument. So first you suggested we can and should use technology to preserve societal growth, and then you seem to suggest that being cognizant of these motivations and selecting among various strategies is wrong because we should trust in some kind of implicit governing principle or intelligence? Which is it? > As the history of Yellowstone park illustrates, humans have done far more damage attempting to control population sizes of animals than we have just letting them be. Here again you're contradicting the sentiments you displayed in paragraph 1 and 2. Should we try and use technology to solve the problems before us proactively or accept any such intervention is doomed due to ignorance? Are you sure you're the not the adherent to Malthusianism?
merpnderp 7y ago
You’re a mind reader then to discern his true goal? Hardly, you just made up something you could easily attack. Yet anyone capable of looking around would see we already have the technology to allow the whole world to keep progressing, just some people would rather don hair shirts and make people feel bad for wanting everyone to own a car.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  All I can do is point out the implications of what there saying. And point out you and I live on lives sustained by indentured servitude.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    I glossed over your indentured servitude the first time, but would like to know more now. If there are people in indentured servitude, then by the traditional definition they aren't in the top 7 countries. Are you saying if I drank less coffee, then farmers in El Salvador would have it better? If I bought fewer phones, then factory workers in China would be better off? If I ate less food, then wheat farmers in Kansas would rejoice?
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the system that gives you those things does not provide a commensurate share of the profit produced to the people who actually supply the base product or even work with the product to provide you the components of those things. Those folks subsist in extreme poverty, doing difficult physical work. They're miners and farmers and duck haulers and other such tasks that make up the bulk of the actual work but a minority of the actual profitshare. You don't fix those problems in the long term by buying different things. You solve them by paying people sums commensurate with the value they produce and by focusing on making the base standard of living more fair for more of the planet rather than making it realistic for Jeff Bezos to build a private moonbase. Such a reprioritization will surely see changes in what is available for the top 30% of the world, to the betterment of the bottom 70%. It is recency and identity biases that make it difficult for us to understand how much that matters.
HocusLocus 7y ago
> But we can't do it at the expense of the future There's a great range of opinion on this. The extent of the expense and the meaning of 'future'. And what needs to be done first and foremost. And who gets to decide. And how our own children will be impacted by our choices of adversity. The only real 'sure thing' is the arrival of another dinosaur killer.

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.

KirinDave 7y ago
> 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. Without re-examining our priorities quickly and changing our economies, this fate awaits everyone. > Which in practical terms applies to every human being, ever, who didn't become an ascetic monk. No, not everyone is a Reactionary.
- candiodari 7y ago
  > Without re-examining our priorities quickly and changing our economies, this fate awaits everyone. I don't get this way of thinking. This isn't the first time people thought that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism They were wrong then, they will be wrong now. Why do I think that ? Because we are already far over the carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels. Either technology will save us or your doom scenario WILL happen. In other words, you could be wrong or right. If you're wrong, then of course we should only take limited steps to change. If you're right and we cannot adapt, then we're fucked unless we kill something like 90% of the human race (exact number doesn't really matter, even if it's 50%). Any event that kills 90% of the human race is going to be as bad as just waiting for the "migration, collapse and death", whether we engineer it or not. So you're wrong. Not just because there's a range of technologies that could save our ass, but also because "changing our priorities" is no different from "migration, collapse, and death" at this point. BUT on the plus side: stabilization is happening, without us having to do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_popula... World population is on the path to peaking at around 8.5 billion humans and then dropping to steady state at around 7.5 billion. That's our current guess. Barring a great war or something like that, that's what will happen. Animals come with a built-in "carrying capacity guesser", and populations end up very close to the exact STABLE carrying capacity of whatever environment they find themselves in. And while it's possible to disrupt this (famously the case of rabbits and cats in artificial environments without good enough places to hide for the rabbits, but abundant food availability), shouldn't our default assumption be that there clearly is a mechanism controlling human population size, and that it's not in fact screwing up ? That that 8.5/7.5 billion number is in fact a pretty good guess ? As the history of Yellowstone park illustrates, humans have done far more damage attempting to control population sizes of animals than we have just letting them be.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    > They were wrong then, they will be wrong now. Why do I think that ? Because we are already far over the carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels. Either technology will save us or your doom scenario WILL happen. In other words, you could be wrong or right. If you're wrong, then of course we should only take limited steps to change. If you're right and we cannot adapt, then we're fucked unless we kill something like 90% of the human race (exact number doesn't really matter, even if it's 50%). Any event that kills 90% of the human race is going to be as bad as just waiting for the "migration, collapse and death", whether we engineer it or not. I'm quite certain you've misread me because you seem to be suggesting I'm not advocating action and a possible stable outcome. I am. What I'm saying is that making no changes in the face of new data will simply continue to ignore the reality we're increasingly convinced of: that climate change is going to collapse every aspect of modern society unless we react swiftly and broadly to counteract it and its effects. Suggesting this is Malthusian in nature is wrong. > So you're wrong. Not just because there's a range of technologies that could save our ass, but also because "changing our priorities" is no different from "migration, collapse, and death" at this point. If we refuse to apply said technologies, then we're in trouble. We might refuse if, for example, men are afraid recycling makes them look effeminate or because solar power is unpopular with people convinced oil industry=freedom. > Animals come with a built-in "carrying capacity guesser", and populations end up very close to the exact STABLE carrying capacity of whatever environment they find themselves in. ... What? No, they don't. Any species that doesn't reach equilibrium dies. > shouldn't our default assumption be that there clearly is a mechanism controlling human population size, and that it's not in fact screwing up ? What a weird argument. So first you suggested we can and should use technology to preserve societal growth, and then you seem to suggest that being cognizant of these motivations and selecting among various strategies is wrong because we should trust in some kind of implicit governing principle or intelligence? Which is it? > As the history of Yellowstone park illustrates, humans have done far more damage attempting to control population sizes of animals than we have just letting them be. Here again you're contradicting the sentiments you displayed in paragraph 1 and 2. Should we try and use technology to solve the problems before us proactively or accept any such intervention is doomed due to ignorance? Are you sure you're the not the adherent to Malthusianism?

merpnderp 7y ago

You’re a mind reader then to discern his true goal? Hardly, you just made up something you could easily attack. Yet anyone capable of looking around would see we already have the technology to allow the whole world to keep progressing, just some people would rather don hair shirts and make people feel bad for wanting everyone to own a car.

KirinDave 7y ago
All I can do is point out the implications of what there saying. And point out you and I live on lives sustained by indentured servitude.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  I glossed over your indentured servitude the first time, but would like to know more now. If there are people in indentured servitude, then by the traditional definition they aren't in the top 7 countries. Are you saying if I drank less coffee, then farmers in El Salvador would have it better? If I bought fewer phones, then factory workers in China would be better off? If I ate less food, then wheat farmers in Kansas would rejoice?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the system that gives you those things does not provide a commensurate share of the profit produced to the people who actually supply the base product or even work with the product to provide you the components of those things. Those folks subsist in extreme poverty, doing difficult physical work. They're miners and farmers and duck haulers and other such tasks that make up the bulk of the actual work but a minority of the actual profitshare. You don't fix those problems in the long term by buying different things. You solve them by paying people sums commensurate with the value they produce and by focusing on making the base standard of living more fair for more of the planet rather than making it realistic for Jeff Bezos to build a private moonbase. Such a reprioritization will surely see changes in what is available for the top 30% of the world, to the betterment of the bottom 70%. It is recency and identity biases that make it difficult for us to understand how much that matters.

HocusLocus 7y ago

> But we can't do it at the expense of the future There's a great range of opinion on this. The extent of the expense and the meaning of 'future'. And what needs to be done first and foremost. And who gets to decide. And how our own children will be impacted by our choices of adversity. The only real 'sure thing' is the arrival of another dinosaur killer.