5 ms·

Step 1. Change meaning of GDP to include nature. Step 2. Everyone has to eat bug sandwiches Step 3. Camps for people who refuse to eat bug sandwiches.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
I think you'll find nature will always get the last word on this, no matter what anyone believes politically.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't know. There was a certain Thomas Malthus who was quite convinced that the standard of living in the 1800s was the highest nature would permit, and any country which wanted to avoid famine would need to virtuously restrain itself from seeking to consume more. Maybe it's different this time, and we really are at the limits of what nature will support, but I think we need some explanation of how we know we're not repeating his lack of imagination.
  - elproxy 6y ago
    That's a misread of Malthus: https://twitter.com/g_kallis/status/1285950145553731584?s=20 https://twitter.com/g_kallis/status/1285950145553731584?s=20 And in the meantime the state of science has evolved a bit. We have a better idea today where we stand on planetary boundaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      This Twitter thread is an overcorrection. I've seen people characterize Malthus's position as "Famine is an inevitable part of the natural order of things" or "The current global population is the maximum we can possibly support", and neither of those are true. But he definitely didn't believe that "there are no limits to resources or food production". He claimed that it was absolutely impossible to improve agricultural productivity more than linearly (https://books.google.com/books?id=9-q_SSfE6skC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=9-q_SSfE6skC&pg=PA5#v=onep..., p.10), and questioned whether densely settled countries like Japan and China could ever achieve even twice their current productivity (p. 8).
- sgeisler 6y ago
  I doubt this will _always_ be the case, but it is for now. If we ever want to go beyond earth we'll have to figure out how to live independently from natural habitats and their ecology. One puzzle piece will probably be hydroponics (another HN frontpage thread from today). Others, like efficient temperature management adaptable to hugely different environments and high density and long term energy sources (e.g. fusion), have yet to be developed. I actually think researching these technologies is more important than saving earth. By all means, slow the decay so we get there, but eventually someone will fuck up anyway and we'd better have colonized the solar system by then. In such a future clean air would be as much a tradable commodity as water and food are today. There are two ways of dealing with tragedy of the commons: remove the tragedy through coordinated action or let the market remove the commons. Looking at our history coordination and selfless cooperation are just not really a viable option long term, they only work intermittently.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

I think you'll find nature will always get the last word on this, no matter what anyone believes politically.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't know. There was a certain Thomas Malthus who was quite convinced that the standard of living in the 1800s was the highest nature would permit, and any country which wanted to avoid famine would need to virtuously restrain itself from seeking to consume more. Maybe it's different this time, and we really are at the limits of what nature will support, but I think we need some explanation of how we know we're not repeating his lack of imagination.
- elproxy 6y ago
  That's a misread of Malthus: https://twitter.com/g_kallis/status/1285950145553731584?s=20 https://twitter.com/g_kallis/status/1285950145553731584?s=20 And in the meantime the state of science has evolved a bit. We have a better idea today where we stand on planetary boundaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    This Twitter thread is an overcorrection. I've seen people characterize Malthus's position as "Famine is an inevitable part of the natural order of things" or "The current global population is the maximum we can possibly support", and neither of those are true. But he definitely didn't believe that "there are no limits to resources or food production". He claimed that it was absolutely impossible to improve agricultural productivity more than linearly (https://books.google.com/books?id=9-q_SSfE6skC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=9-q_SSfE6skC&pg=PA5#v=onep..., p.10), and questioned whether densely settled countries like Japan and China could ever achieve even twice their current productivity (p. 8).
sgeisler 6y ago
I doubt this will _always_ be the case, but it is for now. If we ever want to go beyond earth we'll have to figure out how to live independently from natural habitats and their ecology. One puzzle piece will probably be hydroponics (another HN frontpage thread from today). Others, like efficient temperature management adaptable to hugely different environments and high density and long term energy sources (e.g. fusion), have yet to be developed. I actually think researching these technologies is more important than saving earth. By all means, slow the decay so we get there, but eventually someone will fuck up anyway and we'd better have colonized the solar system by then. In such a future clean air would be as much a tradable commodity as water and food are today. There are two ways of dealing with tragedy of the commons: remove the tragedy through coordinated action or let the market remove the commons. Looking at our history coordination and selfless cooperation are just not really a viable option long term, they only work intermittently.