3 ms·

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like the easy part). Edit: one caveat is that there may be legitimate disagreements about the science, e.g. what probabilities to consider sufficient and what models to use when predicting whether such an expensive effort to revitalise the planet will in fact give the desired effect. Also, there is at least one objective downside to localising human presence to ultra-dense habitats that I have missed: a catastrophic black swan event could suddenly wipe out a much larger percentage of human population at once. This downside theoretically could be thoroughly addressed through technology, but that technology is probably very far out as of now.

rorykoehler 6y ago
This sums up my position much more eloquently than I could have done it.
fogihujy 6y ago
Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.
      - fogihujy 6y ago
        Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.

rorykoehler 6y ago

This sums up my position much more eloquently than I could have done it.

fogihujy 6y ago

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.

strogonoff 6y ago
My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.