5 ms·

That has been the case for the past 5000 or so years -- it could be that this time is different, but highly unlikely.

lucb1e 6y ago
Are you making the argument that someone in 3000BC, who couldn't even read or communicate further than voice could carry, didn't take enough action on the global warming problem that wouldn't exist for another ~4950 years? We're trying to solve a problem that has become apparent in the last ~50 years, it's a bit weird to mention a trend that long predated the existence of the problem and use that as argument for why we can't solve the problem without more pollution. I guess it's a bit like someone in 1800 saying that ever-more horses were involved in becoming more prosperous and therefore we can't have prosperity without at least two horses per person. I am not saying we won't need more energy ever again, but long-term we can find solutions for that, and short-term (as a stopgap solution) we already know that nuclear power can deliver that power without the global warming. It has other problems, but not ones that threaten our lives as much as global warming does. Of course, in the long run we'll need other forms of energy to take over completely, but even in the short term we can (as in, physical ability, not political will) make this work without reducing our energy needs. I don't believe there's a causal relation between more pollution and more prosperity.
- new2628 6y ago
  Sure, it's just that until now growth has been coupled with more intensive energy use. There were some talks by Vaclav Smil on this that I found very informative.
- rpedela 6y ago
  There is a causal relation between more energy and more prosperity, not pollution. Pollution is a byproduct of how we have chosen to produce that energy. There is no fundamental reason it has to stay that way.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >I am not saying we won't need more energy ever again, but long-term we can find solutions for that, and short-term (as a stopgap solution) we already know that nuclear power can deliver that power without the global warming. If you increase supply of energy via nuclear, it will decrease price of fossil fuel energy, and there’s a few billion people ready to go on vacations to Maldives/Tahiti/etc and experience what it’s like to live in detached single family homes with their own personal SUVs. And there’s no way nuclear power can be developed in a quick enough timeframe, there’s not enough people with expertise or materials. We need to curtail consumption of fossil fuels yesterday, which means heavily tax it, which means less traveling, less purchasing of plastics, fewer cars, and these are all the opposite for how prosperity is measured today.
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    I don't know for sure whether nuclear plants can be built fast enough so I can't really agree or disagree with you there, but while I do certainly agree that we need to curtail consumption of fossil fuels yesterday, so far it looks like that curtailing gets us at most 8% (we're not going to get a stronger example than cancelling air and most car traffic in all of the most pollutive-per-capita countries: nobody would go follow such measures if it weren't for a pandemic but for a potential extinction event more than a year in the future). We need more than 8%, way more.

Are you making the argument that someone in 3000BC, who couldn't even read or communicate further than voice could carry, didn't take enough action on the global warming problem that wouldn't exist for another ~4950 years? We're trying to solve a problem that has become apparent in the last ~50 years, it's a bit weird to mention a trend that long predated the existence of the problem and use that as argument for why we can't solve the problem without more pollution. I guess it's a bit like someone in 1800 saying that ever-more horses were involved in becoming more prosperous and therefore we can't have prosperity without at least two horses per person. I am not saying we won't need more energy ever again, but long-term we can find solutions for that, and short-term (as a stopgap solution) we already know that nuclear power can deliver that power without the global warming. It has other problems, but not ones that threaten our lives as much as global warming does. Of course, in the long run we'll need other forms of energy to take over completely, but even in the short term we can (as in, physical ability, not political will) make this work without reducing our energy needs. I don't believe there's a causal relation between more pollution and more prosperity.

new2628 6y ago
Sure, it's just that until now growth has been coupled with more intensive energy use. There were some talks by Vaclav Smil on this that I found very informative.
rpedela 6y ago
There is a causal relation between more energy and more prosperity, not pollution. Pollution is a byproduct of how we have chosen to produce that energy. There is no fundamental reason it has to stay that way.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>I am not saying we won't need more energy ever again, but long-term we can find solutions for that, and short-term (as a stopgap solution) we already know that nuclear power can deliver that power without the global warming. If you increase supply of energy via nuclear, it will decrease price of fossil fuel energy, and there’s a few billion people ready to go on vacations to Maldives/Tahiti/etc and experience what it’s like to live in detached single family homes with their own personal SUVs. And there’s no way nuclear power can be developed in a quick enough timeframe, there’s not enough people with expertise or materials. We need to curtail consumption of fossil fuels yesterday, which means heavily tax it, which means less traveling, less purchasing of plastics, fewer cars, and these are all the opposite for how prosperity is measured today.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  I don't know for sure whether nuclear plants can be built fast enough so I can't really agree or disagree with you there, but while I do certainly agree that we need to curtail consumption of fossil fuels yesterday, so far it looks like that curtailing gets us at most 8% (we're not going to get a stronger example than cancelling air and most car traffic in all of the most pollutive-per-capita countries: nobody would go follow such measures if it weren't for a pandemic but for a potential extinction event more than a year in the future). We need more than 8%, way more.