5 ms·

> Science can tell us what actions will lead to what outcomes That's what this paper does. It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is n

> Science can tell us what actions will lead to what outcomes That's what this paper does. It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change. > Recent scientists’ warnings confirm alarming trends of environmental degradation from human activity, leading to profound changes in essential life-sustaining functions of planet Earth It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway. This paper simply identifies causes contributing to the unsustainablity of the current system and makes some proposals to mitigate or eliminate it. It's analyzing and providing options. Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems.

logicchains 6y ago
>It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change. It seems you missed the fact that many people don't care about sustainability, and are unwilling to accept even a small reduction in quality of life in the name of the environment. Clearly their values differ from the values of the paper's authors regarding what is "necessary societal change". >It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway. If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. The more limits there are on economic growth, the longer this will take. Similarly, life-extension technology will allow people to extend their lives longer; the slower the economy grows, the longer it will take to develop this. The paper didn't even consider this, or any other downsides of limiting economic growth. >Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems. The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do", it's in the format "this is what we should do". For example: "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" - that's clearly a value judgement, not science.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  > If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. That's not really true, there are other solutions. Bombing us back to stone age, or keeping everyone poor and occasionally decimating the population through resulting pandemics and wars, are both working solutions that align well with the ideology behind the article. Now if we want civilized solutions that actually improve life for everyone, becoming an interplanetary species is mandatory.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  I feel like you didn't read what I wrote or the article: Life itself depends on sustainability. > If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. Or not have a system of infinite growth at all. > The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do" It's literally what the paper says. > "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >Life itself depends on sustainability. "Life" isn't a sentient being with values, people are. Humanity makes decisions based on some aggregate of the preferences of living humans. If most humans want to enjoy a good life now at the expense of the future environment, there's no objective standard to say they're wrong. It's a classic argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument , as noted by Sextus Empiricus, the founder of empiricism. There's no way to empirically justify a moral judgement. >Or not have a system of infinite growth at all. This betrays a misunderstanding of what growth means in an economic context. If your barber learns how to cut your hair twice as fast, that's economic growth. If the paperboy adopts a more efficient paper route to deliver papers faster, that's economic growth. If enough paperboys adopt more efficient routes, that shows up in GDP growth. >This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too? Yes of course it is. It's based on utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), basically the philosophy that there is some quantitative form of value that we should aim to maximise. That's why there are different schools of economics: they disagree on the foundations.

logicchains 6y ago

>It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change. It seems you missed the fact that many people don't care about sustainability, and are unwilling to accept even a small reduction in quality of life in the name of the environment. Clearly their values differ from the values of the paper's authors regarding what is "necessary societal change". >It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway. If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. The more limits there are on economic growth, the longer this will take. Similarly, life-extension technology will allow people to extend their lives longer; the slower the economy grows, the longer it will take to develop this. The paper didn't even consider this, or any other downsides of limiting economic growth. >Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems. The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do", it's in the format "this is what we should do". For example: "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" - that's clearly a value judgement, not science.

lazyjones 6y ago
> If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. That's not really true, there are other solutions. Bombing us back to stone age, or keeping everyone poor and occasionally decimating the population through resulting pandemics and wars, are both working solutions that align well with the ideology behind the article. Now if we want civilized solutions that actually improve life for everyone, becoming an interplanetary species is mandatory.
guerrilla 6y ago
I feel like you didn't read what I wrote or the article: Life itself depends on sustainability. > If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. Or not have a system of infinite growth at all. > The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do" It's literally what the paper says. > "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Life itself depends on sustainability. "Life" isn't a sentient being with values, people are. Humanity makes decisions based on some aggregate of the preferences of living humans. If most humans want to enjoy a good life now at the expense of the future environment, there's no objective standard to say they're wrong. It's a classic argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument , as noted by Sextus Empiricus, the founder of empiricism. There's no way to empirically justify a moral judgement. >Or not have a system of infinite growth at all. This betrays a misunderstanding of what growth means in an economic context. If your barber learns how to cut your hair twice as fast, that's economic growth. If the paperboy adopts a more efficient paper route to deliver papers faster, that's economic growth. If enough paperboys adopt more efficient routes, that shows up in GDP growth. >This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too? Yes of course it is. It's based on utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), basically the philosophy that there is some quantitative form of value that we should aim to maximise. That's why there are different schools of economics: they disagree on the foundations.