6 ms·

The era of fossil fuels will go down in history, if any history is preserved, as the point where human ignorance was no longer held back by lack of capacity. We

by hnarn 7y ago

The era of fossil fuels will go down in history, if any history is preserved, as the point where human ignorance was no longer held back by lack of capacity. We are so doped up on carbon-based fuel that we are completely oblivious to the total dependency our way of life has on it. A simple thought experiment by the way of "what does it take to produce a pencil"[1] will give anyone insight in this. Sometimes I feel like we just don't have the collective mental capacity to handle mega-issues like these. And in the end, just like an addict, unless we kick the habit we are collectively, as a species, going to walk hand in hand into oblivion. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2153998.I_Pencil https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2153998.I_Pencil

Ygg2 7y ago
I don't think it's that special. When there are large benefits to humans and no apparent downsides, humans will pollute as much as Earth capacity allows. Just like any other organism before.
- hnarn 7y ago
  Humans aren't single cell organisms. We are self-aware organisms, arguably more intelligent than any other organism we ourselves have ever encountered. There are very apparent downsides to the benefits we are reaping, but for some reason we are incapable of acting as one in the interest of all, and instead seem to prioritize acting for ourselves, seemingly incapable of making the connection that the detriment of all will, in the end, also be the detriment of ourselves.
  - loopz 7y ago
    The economy functions in order to provide services to as many people as possible. In fact, with the marriage of state and business of today, the output is optimized to extract as much as possible and distribute to people beyond what can be realistically consumed. Our metric is growth of economic activity alone, and thus to detriment to long-term sustainability, prudent management of resources and effective outcomes of economic output.
zpeti 7y ago
Just for a second, try and imagine what world you would be living in without fossil fuels in the last 200 years. Would you have the computer or phone to write on? Would you have the internet to connect? Your house? Your food? That's not to say it's not a good idea to change this, and to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But to say this period was a period of human ignorance and "doped up"-ness is an extremely naive reading of human history.
- hnarn 7y ago
  Describing the era of fossil fuels as "doped up" is not a way of saying that the progress that was made was not good: it's a way of pointing out that it was unsustainable, and irresponsible. There's no reason to believe that computers or phones could not have existed in a different reality where fossil fuels were used in a more restricted manner, owing to their inherent dangers when over-used. Not only could the use have been restricted, we could also have compensated for the usage earlier, and made less irresponsible choices in how we perform our agriculture and industrial endeavors. The insight into climate change is not new, it's not something we're understanding just now. We just didn't care until now. There's a reason people get hooked on drugs, it's a very pleasurable experience, while you're still using it.
  - loopz 7y ago
    When the enemy is invisible, nobody cares until the cat's out of the bag. With climate change, the enemy is here already.
xtian 7y ago
I would be careful about blaming "human ignorance" because, case in point, a great many of us are aware of the climate crisis and feel the need to do something about it. In the US, for example, most of the component policies of the Green New Deal poll quite well across party lines. The problem is that the climate crisis demands large-scale collective planning and decision making, and our systems for doing so have been completely co-opted by powerful economic entities. The actions available to the average citizen amount to putting aside everything in one's life to become an activist (which most people don't have the luxury to do), occasionally voting from a menu of pre-selected corporate-backed candidates, or making ultimately insignificant lifestyle changes (and even that has been subverted by economic powers through "eco-friendly" consumer products). It's always helpful to look at a problem through the lens of power relationships before blaming "people" for being stupid or ignorant. Certainly some people are, but that doesn't mean it would solve the problem if they weren't.
- dyadic 7y ago
  It is ignorance though, both willing and unwilling. It's ignorance at the bottom, ignorance at the top, and ignorance at every level in between. Even our "solutions" are ignorant. Every improvement in energy efficiency we have ever made has resulted in more energy use, but we still cling to the idea that if we can make everything just a bit more efficient then that will do it and our problem will be solved. It's a lie and it's a scam. A green new deal isn't the solution and it's our ignorance that makes us believe that it is. All it does is greenwash all of the toxic things we are already doing. We can't solve industrialisation with more industrialisation. We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so.
  - clarry 7y ago
    > We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so. And this requires revolution because our whole economy is built around constantly working (and thus producing and consuming, if not rent-seeking, but we can't all be rent-seekers), even if all our basic needs were already met.
rezeroed 7y ago
There's a take on I, Pencil but with a computer. I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for it, but it's out there somewhere, and was enjoyable.
crispinb 7y ago
I understand your sense of grievance, and often share it at an emotional level. But what makes you think it would ever have been different? Any creature which evolved the behavioural flexibility to outrun curbs on its pullulation would eventually overtax its environment. It just so happens that human spread has been so extensive that our environment is the whole globe. It is only natural, in the strictest sense, that we will damage it, probably to the point of making it inhospitable to us (at least in current numbers & consumption levels). To think that we (merely a bright hominid, evolved for small-group social interactions) might transcend our biology to manage an entire planet is, well, wishful thinking at best. It was a pleasant fantasy, with religious origins. That's all.
Kaiyou 7y ago
If the cure is worse than the illness, why take the cure? Who are you going to save the planet for? I don't particularly mind humanity ending a few years after I've died of old age.
- Loughla 7y ago
  This strikes me as Luddite thinking, at best; 'I like things the way they are, so why change' type of thing. At worst, this comes across as short-sighted, selfish, and hateful. Please explain yourself, so I can understand what you're saying.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    Luddites were people that went out destroying the machines that replaced them in the workforce. Obviously their efforts were futile. Please explain how this applies to my thinking. I'm not opposed to technology, I welcome technology. Isn't it very much like the Luddites to advocate for "scaling back" with our "pollution"? The motives are different, but the objective seems identical. You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  The cure could easily be better than what we have right now. We don't have to throw away civilisation or the good life to solve this.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    What do we have to do, then?
growlist 7y ago
I'm a small c conservative, and as part of this I care about the environment, and from my perspective there are a number of ways that the environmental movement don't do themselves any favours. Firstly there are those amongst them that come across far too preachy, in a way that can be a turn-off. Nobody constantly wants to hear bad news and moralising and be told they are personally responsible for all these problems, when most are just trying to get by in a system they didn't create, and have little real influence over. Secondly some of them oppose even the suggestion of technical solutions, preferring instead to emphasise that a kind of hair-shirt existence of drastically poorer lifestyles is all we have the right to expect, as if we've committed some kind of moral crime and only penance will suffice. Thirdly and related to both of the first two points, some (most?) of them are tightly bound to leftist political movements - sometimes tending to the extreme - which both immediately alienates people like me, and makes me suspicious that they are merely using the green movement as a vehicle for ulterior concerns, and indeed some of them are actually completely open about this: 'I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system of that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life. This was exacerbated when European ‘civilisation’ was spread around the globe through cruelty and violence (especially) over the last 600 years of colonialism, although the roots of the infections go much further back.' https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49 https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion... 'Greta Thunberg: Climate crisis "not just about environment," but also "colonial, racist, patriarchal systems of oppression"' https://disrn.com/news/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-not-just-about-environment-but-also-colonial-racist-patriarchal-systems-of-oppression https://disrn.com/news/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-not-jus... I could go on to point out the myriad inconsistencies in the positions of these groups e.g. pro-environment/pro-migration, pro-environment/anti population control, but I'll leave it there. If I think about it for too long it makes me angry because I think these groups are doing more harm than good, and I question whether they really care about the environment at all.
- pcmaffey 7y ago
  Not sure how you can care about protecting the environment while explicitly ignoring investigation into what’s harming the environment? Unless you believe human activity is not driving climate change, then of course environmentalism is linked to anti-globalization sentiment.
aww_dang 7y ago
How can we assume that the proposed solutions or diagnosis of the problem can escape the trap of 'human ignorance'? Human nature is largely static. The fallibility of man is a constant.

by hnarn 7y ago

Ygg2 7y ago

I don't think it's that special. When there are large benefits to humans and no apparent downsides, humans will pollute as much as Earth capacity allows. Just like any other organism before.

hnarn 7y ago
Humans aren't single cell organisms. We are self-aware organisms, arguably more intelligent than any other organism we ourselves have ever encountered. There are very apparent downsides to the benefits we are reaping, but for some reason we are incapable of acting as one in the interest of all, and instead seem to prioritize acting for ourselves, seemingly incapable of making the connection that the detriment of all will, in the end, also be the detriment of ourselves.
- loopz 7y ago
  The economy functions in order to provide services to as many people as possible. In fact, with the marriage of state and business of today, the output is optimized to extract as much as possible and distribute to people beyond what can be realistically consumed. Our metric is growth of economic activity alone, and thus to detriment to long-term sustainability, prudent management of resources and effective outcomes of economic output.

zpeti 7y ago

Just for a second, try and imagine what world you would be living in without fossil fuels in the last 200 years. Would you have the computer or phone to write on? Would you have the internet to connect? Your house? Your food? That's not to say it's not a good idea to change this, and to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. But to say this period was a period of human ignorance and "doped up"-ness is an extremely naive reading of human history.

hnarn 7y ago
Describing the era of fossil fuels as "doped up" is not a way of saying that the progress that was made was not good: it's a way of pointing out that it was unsustainable, and irresponsible. There's no reason to believe that computers or phones could not have existed in a different reality where fossil fuels were used in a more restricted manner, owing to their inherent dangers when over-used. Not only could the use have been restricted, we could also have compensated for the usage earlier, and made less irresponsible choices in how we perform our agriculture and industrial endeavors. The insight into climate change is not new, it's not something we're understanding just now. We just didn't care until now. There's a reason people get hooked on drugs, it's a very pleasurable experience, while you're still using it.
- loopz 7y ago
  When the enemy is invisible, nobody cares until the cat's out of the bag. With climate change, the enemy is here already.

xtian 7y ago

I would be careful about blaming "human ignorance" because, case in point, a great many of us are aware of the climate crisis and feel the need to do something about it. In the US, for example, most of the component policies of the Green New Deal poll quite well across party lines. The problem is that the climate crisis demands large-scale collective planning and decision making, and our systems for doing so have been completely co-opted by powerful economic entities. The actions available to the average citizen amount to putting aside everything in one's life to become an activist (which most people don't have the luxury to do), occasionally voting from a menu of pre-selected corporate-backed candidates, or making ultimately insignificant lifestyle changes (and even that has been subverted by economic powers through "eco-friendly" consumer products). It's always helpful to look at a problem through the lens of power relationships before blaming "people" for being stupid or ignorant. Certainly some people are, but that doesn't mean it would solve the problem if they weren't.

dyadic 7y ago
It is ignorance though, both willing and unwilling. It's ignorance at the bottom, ignorance at the top, and ignorance at every level in between. Even our "solutions" are ignorant. Every improvement in energy efficiency we have ever made has resulted in more energy use, but we still cling to the idea that if we can make everything just a bit more efficient then that will do it and our problem will be solved. It's a lie and it's a scam. A green new deal isn't the solution and it's our ignorance that makes us believe that it is. All it does is greenwash all of the toxic things we are already doing. We can't solve industrialisation with more industrialisation. We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so.
- clarry 7y ago
  > We can look outside of our windows now and see the solution. It's doing less, it's working less, it's not polluting the world, it's consuming less and producing less. Radically so. And this requires revolution because our whole economy is built around constantly working (and thus producing and consuming, if not rent-seeking, but we can't all be rent-seekers), even if all our basic needs were already met.

rezeroed 7y ago

There's a take on I, Pencil but with a computer. I'm not sufficiently motivated to look for it, but it's out there somewhere, and was enjoyable.

crispinb 7y ago

I understand your sense of grievance, and often share it at an emotional level. But what makes you think it would ever have been different? Any creature which evolved the behavioural flexibility to outrun curbs on its pullulation would eventually overtax its environment. It just so happens that human spread has been so extensive that our environment is the whole globe. It is only natural, in the strictest sense, that we will damage it, probably to the point of making it inhospitable to us (at least in current numbers & consumption levels). To think that we (merely a bright hominid, evolved for small-group social interactions) might transcend our biology to manage an entire planet is, well, wishful thinking at best. It was a pleasant fantasy, with religious origins. That's all.

Kaiyou 7y ago

If the cure is worse than the illness, why take the cure? Who are you going to save the planet for? I don't particularly mind humanity ending a few years after I've died of old age.

Loughla 7y ago
This strikes me as Luddite thinking, at best; 'I like things the way they are, so why change' type of thing. At worst, this comes across as short-sighted, selfish, and hateful. Please explain yourself, so I can understand what you're saying.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  Luddites were people that went out destroying the machines that replaced them in the workforce. Obviously their efforts were futile. Please explain how this applies to my thinking. I'm not opposed to technology, I welcome technology. Isn't it very much like the Luddites to advocate for "scaling back" with our "pollution"? The motives are different, but the objective seems identical. You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
The cure could easily be better than what we have right now. We don't have to throw away civilisation or the good life to solve this.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  What do we have to do, then?

growlist 7y ago

I'm a small c conservative, and as part of this I care about the environment, and from my perspective there are a number of ways that the environmental movement don't do themselves any favours. Firstly there are those amongst them that come across far too preachy, in a way that can be a turn-off. Nobody constantly wants to hear bad news and moralising and be told they are personally responsible for all these problems, when most are just trying to get by in a system they didn't create, and have little real influence over. Secondly some of them oppose even the suggestion of technical solutions, preferring instead to emphasise that a kind of hair-shirt existence of drastically poorer lifestyles is all we have the right to expect, as if we've committed some kind of moral crime and only penance will suffice. Thirdly and related to both of the first two points, some (most?) of them are tightly bound to leftist political movements - sometimes tending to the extreme - which both immediately alienates people like me, and makes me suspicious that they are merely using the green movement as a vehicle for ulterior concerns, and indeed some of them are actually completely open about this: 'I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system of that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life. This was exacerbated when European ‘civilisation’ was spread around the globe through cruelty and violence (especially) over the last 600 years of colonialism, although the roots of the infections go much further back.' https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49 https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion... 'Greta Thunberg: Climate crisis "not just about environment," but also "colonial, racist, patriarchal systems of oppression"' https://disrn.com/news/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-not-just-about-environment-but-also-colonial-racist-patriarchal-systems-of-oppression https://disrn.com/news/greta-thunberg-climate-crisis-not-jus... I could go on to point out the myriad inconsistencies in the positions of these groups e.g. pro-environment/pro-migration, pro-environment/anti population control, but I'll leave it there. If I think about it for too long it makes me angry because I think these groups are doing more harm than good, and I question whether they really care about the environment at all.

pcmaffey 7y ago
Not sure how you can care about protecting the environment while explicitly ignoring investigation into what’s harming the environment? Unless you believe human activity is not driving climate change, then of course environmentalism is linked to anti-globalization sentiment.

aww_dang 7y ago

How can we assume that the proposed solutions or diagnosis of the problem can escape the trap of 'human ignorance'? Human nature is largely static. The fallibility of man is a constant.