4 ms·
>> Dangerous because if people start believing this en masse, that prosperity is a zero-sum-game, then war is the only reasonable alternative. > It’s always be
by nothrabannosir 7y ago
>> Dangerous because if people start believing this en masse, that prosperity is a zero-sum-game, then war is the only reasonable alternative.
> It’s always been when resources are constrained. For all forms of life.
The comment you're responding to is saying that resources aren't constrained; we're just not using them effectively. That's a political problem and it can be solved only when people believe it can be.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe amount of energy required to move x amount of mass is a math problem, not a political problem. We’ve already seen what happens to the world’s ecosystem when a very small portion of the world’s population lives a comparably luxurious lifestyle, and unless a breakthrough in thermodynamics is achieved in very short order, I don’t see how it can scale to the whole world. All those new jet setters, car driving commuters, and air conditioned homes aren’t going to come without consequence. I’m not aware of any technological breakthroughs that can enable us to use resources without heavily altering the ecosystem.
- mrob 7y ago>The amount of energy required to move x amount of mass is a math problem If the energy isn't lost to friction then most of it can be recovered. Although I think it's impractical, the Hyperloop concept is one way to reduce friction. Instead of increasing transport speeds beyond current air travel, it could be used at the same speeds but much lower energy cost.
- njarboe 7y agoNuclear energy and solar power can/could solve most of the polluting energy problem and can work today. Increasing meat consumption and the need for more farmland to support it, I feel is a harder problem to solve.
- xorfish 7y agoMeat doesn't require farmland, it will be produced in ordinary factories in a few years.