19 ms·

Bjorn Lomborg: Our lifestyle is unsustainable and why that's irrelevant

40 points by cwan 15y ago

wisty 15y ago
I'm not sure if he's correct. Neo-liberal mainstream economists take it as an article of faith that "everything will be OK in a free market". If we don't innovate early enough, society can collapse. Look at Easter Island. Nuclear is there as an option, but it's not a pretty one. There's a big lead time on reactors. As an Australian, I'm very proud of our imminent carbon tax. Businesses will find a way to cut energy use, or generate "green" power before any crisis hits. OK, a carbon cap and trade might do the same, but businesses won't be able to invest as they will be afraid carbon prices will increase or decrease too much. Speculative bubbles, fraud, and the weather would make prices fluctuate too much.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I'm not sure if he's correct. Neo-liberal mainstream economists take it as an article of faith that "everything will be OK in a free market". So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. > As an Australian, I'm very proud of our imminent carbon tax. Businesses will find a way to cut energy use, or generate "green" power before any crisis hits. Except that you do.
  - zeemonkee 15y ago
    > So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. Innovation isn't guaranteed to happen "on demand". Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. "Everything will be OK in a free market" is just that - an article of faith.
    - gaius 15y ago
      Historically, it's more probably correct than "The Party's 5-year-plan will make everything OK".
      - davidw 15y ago
        Presumably there's some middle ground between communism and "fuck it, innovation will save us no matter how bad we screw up the environment!".
      - Tichy 15y ago
        This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost for doing something not allowed by the government was incredibly high (like death penalty). The free market then would go on to produce the things, according to prices and demand. The black market is simply a part of the general "free market". So there is not really any information contained in "let the free market regulate things". The environment (including politics) determines the actual prize of things. The free market then does the rest, but we still have to set up the environment in the proper way. For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics.
        ckuehne 15y ago
        "Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).
        Tichy 15y ago
        They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. Correct. My point is that that applies to govt/social mandates as well as the free market.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    "So, you don't believe in innovation on demand." The demand for cleaner energy is here now. Lomborg wants to dismiss that. His argument is biting it's own head off.
    - gaius 15y ago
      But it isn't, tho'. Sure people might say they want clean energy, but to see what people truly believe, you have to observe how they spend their own money, given a choice of alternatives. And it's on air travel, cars and ever-more personal electronics and electrical mod-cons.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        They buy air travel to nicer places (less polluted) to make holidays, because where they live is not pretty anymore. And I think it is because these things are often disconnected. If you buy an iPad, the waste ends up in China, not on your front lawn. Maybe if you would have to pay by converting parts of your garden into a toxic waste dump, you would act differently. Besides, I am not convinced that it is a decision between "enjoying the fruits of technology and destroying our world or living like in the stone age, but sustainable". Waste from producing iPads can be processed properly, rather than dumping it into the nearest river. It is a matter of figuring out the proper ways of conduct and proper prices.
        gaius 15y ago
        You're right, but if people want to do a thing, you don't have to pass a law to make them. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm
        Tichy 15y ago
        It's certainly preferable to get by without laws, especially as most laws probably get it wrong. It's not trivial to find another way, though. I could imagine that modern technology could enable more transparency, allowing consumers to make better choices.
  - khafra 15y ago
    If you believe businesses will unfailingly innovate in response to incipient environmental collapse, why not test that belief by challenging them to innovate in response to sub-optimal cash flows first?
lisper 15y ago
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Just because technology has saved our sorry ass in the past does not entail that it will continue to do so forever.
- pyrhho 15y ago
  "Past performance is the best indicator of future performance." Technology has saved our sorry ass in the past, so it is likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.
  - tintin 15y ago
    Not entirely true. Technology can also kill our habitat more quickly. We now know where the fish swim and will catch them all. We now know how to blow up tons of rock to get a little gold... Greed will always be the source of the problem.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Except it hasn't. It has saved us in some occasions, but not in others. There where still millions of "unnatural" deaths in the twentieth century. And, similar to what the other comment pointed out, some species are extinct or nearly extinct - technology doesn't seem to have helped them. What about the recent financial crisis? Not sure how hard it really hit, but nevertheless, technology has not prevented it. Just an example to point out that we do NOT have everything under control.
arethuza 15y ago
On the topic of the long term survival of societies I can thoroughly recommend Collapse by Jared Diamond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_... While I am generally rather positive about the long term fate of our current society I do worry that blind belief that technological innovation will always deliver solutions is perhaps a bit naive.
- Tichy 15y ago
  I always remember his example of a society that collapsed after 4000 years, whereas our modern society is maybe around 200 years old. We have no idea whatsoever how sustainable our current lifestyle is.
rrrazdan 15y ago
And the major unfair point is that the developed countries, after having exploited and polluted their way to prosperity, want equal cuts from the developing world.[1] [1]http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/10/content_8519797.htm http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/engli...
ThomPete 15y ago
I think many people are missing Lomborgs basic point. It's not just blind faith in technology but rather technology is the best choice we have now, so instead of using trillions on political statements of intention, let's use them where it matters and that is in trying to innovate and engineer our way out of some of the issues.
- Tichy 15y ago
  How does a political statement cost trillions? The information contained in the sentence "let's use the money where it matters most" is zero. How do you figure out where it matters most? The fact is: if people can exploit some loophole (like blowing dirt into the air instead of installing expensive filters), they will do so. They don't really have an incentive to do otherwise. It doesn't have to be laws that gives them an incentive - there could be "transparency", customers could prefer to buy "clean" stuff, hence producers would have an incentive to produce clean. Without such an incentive, nothing will happen.
  - acegopher 15y ago
    I think the original comment about political statements costing trillions are when say the government subsidizes corn ethanol. There is good consensus that corn ethanol is energy negative, and that it doesn't result in cleaner air or less greenhouse gases due to production costs. This mis-allocation of capital hinders development of truly better alternatives, and sets back innovation. These setbacks, beyond the cost of the subsidy and the lack of improvement in the areas targeted, do cost trillions.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      I dislike most of the government actions that are supposed to help, but I think it is confusing the discussion to mix together things that could be done, should be done, have been done, and so on. Ultimately I think Lomborg is just a troll, and lumping people together into fake classes is a tried and proven technique for trolling. It gets people worked up because they don't want to be associated with certain other people, and stirs discussion towards petty battles rather than solving the problem. Just because some government wasted billions, doesn't imply every possible political action would be a waste of billions.
nhaehnle 15y ago
The author does not acknowledge the point that e.g. air quality has improved precisely because people have complained about it. The technological developments and business investments in filtering and related technologies would not have happened without environmental groups putting up a fight. In a similar way, groups shouting about unsustainability are the ones who actually get people to think about alternatives, which in turn plays one part in moving technology forward. Of course technology is moved forward by other things as well. But don't underestimate the impact of young people taking up PhDs in relevant subjects partly because of the high visibility of the debate about sustainability.
Tichy 15y ago
We got lucky a few times and now have enjoyed a comparatively long period of time without serious problems. Relatively long time being one generation, so we don't really remember what it feels like to go hungry, struggle to survive in a war and stuff like that. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that bad things can't happen again, just because we don't remember them. In Japan they had ancient stones in the land warning about places where previous Tsunamis had hit. Unfortunately nobody of the "younger generations" cared about them anymore... This attitude of "technology will sort it out every time" is just stupid and not really supported by history. I have no doubt that humans will survive, somehow. Doesn't mean that there can't be turmoil, millions of deaths and so on on the way anymore.
danparsonson 15y ago
I think there are a couple of points that the article skips over: 1) The planet's human population is much greater than it was even 50 years ago (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+earth http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_...) and continues to rise 2) We still don't fully understand the impact of widespread habit and species loss 1) is important because each person requires a minimum amount of energy, in whatever form, to sustain them, so we need to improve our technology year-on-year just to stay at the same level of 'resource drain'. 2) is important because the idea that the natural world will recuperate once we've developed more sympathetic ways of existing with it may actually be flawed. There is some evidence to suggest that the biosphere is a self-regulating system of which we are now breaking or removing many parts. Any such system, however resilient, can only stand so much of that before it collapses. Of course technological development is crucial to our long term survival, but in my opinion this doesn't make short term fixes irrelevant.
- hkolek 15y ago
  ad 1: http://overpopulationisamyth.com http://overpopulationisamyth.com
  - bjelkeman-again 15y ago
    That is a very shallow set of arguments from a self confessed pro-life group. A better place to start understanding the complexities and impact on environment from a large population is probably Nature’s special on planetary boundaries. http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/inde...
  - danparsonson 15y ago
    That discusses the effect of population growth on poverty - where does it talk about the effect of population growth on the environment?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
hootmon 15y ago
According to this Robber Baron apologist, I am 10 times better off than I was in the 50s. Lets see, my dad, in the fifties could afford from his average salary to buy a new car every 2 years. Guess what in my so called better life, I buy a new car every 15 years. yea thats progress. I think this tool lumps the progress of the top 2% in with the rest of us smucks to come up with his baloney good news. The average wage buys less today than it did years ago, plus the average wage is falling and benefits are disappearing. The good news just keeps coming...
- tomjen3 15y ago
  But the car you can buy has more safety and comfort features than the one your dad could buy back then.
- api 15y ago
  But the car you bought then every two years didn't last as long, wasn't as safe, wasn't as comfortable, got worse gas mileage, didn't accelerate as well, had no power steering, etc. But I do agree that the middle class is in trouble in America. Today to be middle class you need at least a BS degree or equivalent skills and you have to constantly re-educate, and that bar appears to be rising steadily.
- yesbabyyes 15y ago
  I think this is the case: In the fifties, there were a lot fewer people who were as rich as your dad, than there are people today who are as rich as you. At the same time, more people today want and can afford cars and other expensive things. Thus, even though we are constantly using resources more efficiently, you are competing with more people for resources today than your father in the fifties. This is natural and a good thing: If Earth can't sustain very many people buying cars every 2 years, then we can't buy new cars every 2 years. We have to use resources more efficiently. It's a similar situation with fuel: For a long time, we built stronger engines that consumed the same amount of fuel, instead of building engines that used less fuel for more efficient use. Later that trend reversed. A similar thing happened with computers and their energy use. I hope my kids won't have to buy more than one car in their life.
erikstarck 15y ago
I'm surprised by all the negative comments. Lomborg makes the simple suggestion to rely on the most proven processes we have to solve problems: science, technology and trade. How can this in a community of hackers and entrepreneurs be so provocative?
- wgren 15y ago
  That is a false dichotomy - lots of people suggest we rely on science and technology, that is not what many people dislike about Lomborg. Well, it is not what I dislike about him anyway, I can't speak for everyone. Arguing against him is not arguing against science. Actually, it is my respect for science that makes me wary of him. He always seem to suggest simple populist solutions to complex problems.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    The populist solutions are the political summits that year after year claim to want to solve the worlds pollution yet do nothing.
- igrekel 15y ago
  Well, my personal annoyance with that is that it is often used to say: "See the problem will resolve itself by itself, or someone else will do it so we don't have to work on it". The other thing is that while its true that in the past, the problems eventually became irrelevant, I don't think it is predictable and I don't believe we should make a law out of that. Maybe it is a fluke or maybe the timing could be off next time. I don't believe there is a a force that gives us a right to exist, a magical mechanism that makes us pull out ourselves out of any trouble. We have to do it ourselves. I understand we should hear this as "Just don't throw yourselves around like headless chickens" but what I hear is just "Don't worry, do nothing, don't care" and that is not at all inline with being an entrepreneur.
- api 15y ago
  Because we're also a community of scientists. Entrepreneurship and trade can do a lot, but it cannot violate the laws of physics. Peak oil (and gas, and coal) is physics. The laws of physics are absolute. The lost energy from declining fossil fuel EROEI must be either replaced or the demand must be destroyed. Replacing all that energy seems very unlikely... I read about this problem a lot. Demand destruction can occur through efficiency improvements or through simply not buying, not driving, not using. If that's not enough, demand destruction can occur through war, famine, and death. The point is that this will happen if we can't make up the gap, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. Nature doesn't care.
khafra 15y ago
> In fact, would-be catastrophes have regularly been pushed aside throughout human history, and so often because of innovation and technological development. We never just continue to do the same old thing. We innovate and avoid the anticipated problems. The thing about the Anthropic Principle is that it only protects you in the past, not in the future. We're here now because our civilization overcame its past problems; but any speculator can tell you that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
- api 15y ago
  The thing we really have to come to terms with is that the future is unpredictable. Both the "doomers" and the pollyannas fall down here. Past performance says nothing whatsoever about future performance. Nice well-behaved Newtonian systems are amenable to prediction by mathematical regression. Messy, complex, chaotic living systems are not. Everything changes, and changes how it changes, and changes how it changes how it changes, and ...
Zakharov 15y ago
I think Lomborg's got a good argument in favor of a conclusion he leaves unstated (and may, in fact, not favor) - that some portion of the money governments would spend on sustainability should instead be spent on finding a proactive solution to climate change, e.g. extracting large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. Doing nothing and hoping someone independently solves the problem strikes me as an unacceptable risk; there is little market incentive at the moment to reduce environmental damage. A carbon-trading scheme would create such an incentive, but would no doubt create its own inefficiencies. Markets are great at dealing with resource shortages, for example whale oil, but quite bad at dealing with negative externalities, e.g. air pollution. It took government intervention to clean up London (I think? I don't have any sources on this). Spending money on proactive solutions encourages economic growth instead of discouraging it, and can lead to future benefits as "green technology" leads to new advances. On the other hand, it's somewhat risky as most avenues of inquiry will lead to dead ends, and any geo-engineering technology that becomes widely adopted could have nasty side-effects.
api 15y ago
This guy is ignoring the twin elephants in the living room: the unbelievably massive amount of energy that we obtain from fossil fuels, and the reliance on the modern financial system on continuous growth simply to maintain the status quo. These are linked issues. All fossil fuels will peak this century. It's not politics... it's physics. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. Actually, I suspect they will all peak before 2050. Many knowledgeable people think oil has already peaked. Peaking doesn't mean running out, it means exponentially declining EROEI (energy return on energy invested). There's plenty of oil left, but when it takes a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil we are out of oil. Nothing except maybe nuclear has the muscle right now to fill the gap for electricity generation. Just try to sell that now, post-Fukushima. Nothing except biofuel can presently fill the gap for transportation, and it is dubious that biofuels can scale to those levels. Does this mean apocalypse? I'm actually not a "doomer" per se. But consider this: as we pass peak on all fossil fuels, the vast majority of our surplus energy and labor will have to go to simply treading water and maintaining our standard of living in the face of rapidly declining energy availability. There's also going to be a lot of demand destruction: people buying less, traveling less, using less. All that does spell doom for our financial system. Even a short interruption in growth results in financial catastrophe, since without continuous growth you get a wave of debt defaults. It could be a very chaotic century. Edit: but on the upside, there's going to be a ton of entrepreneurial opportunities around saving energy, making energy, and storing energy. Personally I think IT isn't where it's at... if I wanted to get back into entrepreneurship now (and I might in the future) I'd get into something energy-related.
ap22213 15y ago
Nothing like standing up a straw man and then tearing it down. The situations that are cited in the article seem like apples when comparing to the situational oranges of today. A shaky foundation like this hardly seems like a good place to build a valid logical argument. But, it sure does look cool.
Tichy 15y ago
Just wondering, have science and free markets ever resolved a tragedy of the commons situation (except for destroying the resource)? I think the "original" solution for the sheep and lawns was to erect fences, which seems to me to be a purely political solution. It doesn't seem so different from issuing CO2 shares.
stayjin 15y ago
It is the irony of the tragic nature of human race: we are both, descendants of Promitheus, who courageously fought for our right to harness greater powers, but also of Pandora who just did not have the maturity to know what NOT to poke, It is so ironic, there are so many different diets, just to conceal the simple fact that if one eats excessively they will get fat and the simple fact that if one wants to be in good shape, there is a very simple straightforward answer, eat less move more. Instead we busy ourselves with the new " scientific breakthrough" that allows us to be eating bacon all year long and then drink the magic pill and wear our bikini just in time for the miss skinny contest. P.s. The interesting dude is Odisseas, who before going close ro the sirens, he assessed the risk and decided, to hear their sing but not

40 points by cwan 15y ago

wisty 15y ago

I'm not sure if he's correct. Neo-liberal mainstream economists take it as an article of faith that "everything will be OK in a free market". If we don't innovate early enough, society can collapse. Look at Easter Island. Nuclear is there as an option, but it's not a pretty one. There's a big lead time on reactors. As an Australian, I'm very proud of our imminent carbon tax. Businesses will find a way to cut energy use, or generate "green" power before any crisis hits. OK, a carbon cap and trade might do the same, but businesses won't be able to invest as they will be afraid carbon prices will increase or decrease too much. Speculative bubbles, fraud, and the weather would make prices fluctuate too much.

anamax 15y ago
> I'm not sure if he's correct. Neo-liberal mainstream economists take it as an article of faith that "everything will be OK in a free market". So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. > As an Australian, I'm very proud of our imminent carbon tax. Businesses will find a way to cut energy use, or generate "green" power before any crisis hits. Except that you do.
- zeemonkee 15y ago
  > So, you don't believe in innovation on demand. Innovation isn't guaranteed to happen "on demand". Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. "Everything will be OK in a free market" is just that - an article of faith.
  - gaius 15y ago
    Historically, it's more probably correct than "The Party's 5-year-plan will make everything OK".
    - davidw 15y ago
      Presumably there's some middle ground between communism and "fuck it, innovation will save us no matter how bad we screw up the environment!".
    - Tichy 15y ago
      This discussion is seriously flawed. What free market proponents miss is that ALL markets are free markets. Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost for doing something not allowed by the government was incredibly high (like death penalty). The free market then would go on to produce the things, according to prices and demand. The black market is simply a part of the general "free market". So there is not really any information contained in "let the free market regulate things". The environment (including politics) determines the actual prize of things. The free market then does the rest, but we still have to set up the environment in the proper way. For example the price of wheat is not just what people are willing to pay for it - it is also the cost of producing it. You can not go artificially low with the price. Just to provide an example that is not so obviously affected by politics.
      - ckuehne 15y ago
        "Even in communist Russia there was a free market. It was just that the cost [...] was incredibly high (like death penalty)." According to your definition prisoners are also free. It's just the cost of breaking out of prison are incredibly high (like death penalty).
        Tichy 15y ago
        They are free to roam inside their prison cell. Nobody is really free, just our average prison cell is bigger. Where does a real free market (as you might subconsciously imagine it) exist? It would have to be anarchy at least - why am I not "free" to take my neighbor's land to build a factory there? Only in anarchy I would be really free, I could shoot my neighbor and take his land. Unfortunately he could also shoot me first, but that is the price for the truly free market. Unless you want to propose anarchy, you have to propose some policies alongside your supposedly free market, such as property laws enforced by the state/military. There goes you free market down the drain. My point was that "let the free market sort it out" is not a strategy. It does not contain any actionable information, as you still have to define the actual rules of your "free" market. To make a better example than shooting my neighbor to take his land: why am I not free to dump my waste on his land? Would a free market (allowing me to dump my waste on his land) somehow sort out that I wouldn't dump my waste on his land?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Some things may not be physically possible, or even if they are, may prove economically or environmentally unfeasable. Correct. My point is that that applies to govt/social mandates as well as the free market.
- Tichy 15y ago
  "So, you don't believe in innovation on demand." The demand for cleaner energy is here now. Lomborg wants to dismiss that. His argument is biting it's own head off.
  - gaius 15y ago
    But it isn't, tho'. Sure people might say they want clean energy, but to see what people truly believe, you have to observe how they spend their own money, given a choice of alternatives. And it's on air travel, cars and ever-more personal electronics and electrical mod-cons.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      They buy air travel to nicer places (less polluted) to make holidays, because where they live is not pretty anymore. And I think it is because these things are often disconnected. If you buy an iPad, the waste ends up in China, not on your front lawn. Maybe if you would have to pay by converting parts of your garden into a toxic waste dump, you would act differently. Besides, I am not convinced that it is a decision between "enjoying the fruits of technology and destroying our world or living like in the stone age, but sustainable". Waste from producing iPads can be processed properly, rather than dumping it into the nearest river. It is a matter of figuring out the proper ways of conduct and proper prices.
      - gaius 15y ago
        You're right, but if people want to do a thing, you don't have to pass a law to make them. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm
        Tichy 15y ago
        It's certainly preferable to get by without laws, especially as most laws probably get it wrong. It's not trivial to find another way, though. I could imagine that modern technology could enable more transparency, allowing consumers to make better choices.
- khafra 15y ago
  If you believe businesses will unfailingly innovate in response to incipient environmental collapse, why not test that belief by challenging them to innovate in response to sub-optimal cash flows first?

lisper 15y ago

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results." Just because technology has saved our sorry ass in the past does not entail that it will continue to do so forever.

pyrhho 15y ago
"Past performance is the best indicator of future performance." Technology has saved our sorry ass in the past, so it is likely to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.
- tintin 15y ago
  Not entirely true. Technology can also kill our habitat more quickly. We now know where the fish swim and will catch them all. We now know how to blow up tons of rock to get a little gold... Greed will always be the source of the problem.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Except it hasn't. It has saved us in some occasions, but not in others. There where still millions of "unnatural" deaths in the twentieth century. And, similar to what the other comment pointed out, some species are extinct or nearly extinct - technology doesn't seem to have helped them. What about the recent financial crisis? Not sure how hard it really hit, but nevertheless, technology has not prevented it. Just an example to point out that we do NOT have everything under control.

arethuza 15y ago

On the topic of the long term survival of societies I can thoroughly recommend Collapse by Jared Diamond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_... While I am generally rather positive about the long term fate of our current society I do worry that blind belief that technological innovation will always deliver solutions is perhaps a bit naive.

Tichy 15y ago
I always remember his example of a society that collapsed after 4000 years, whereas our modern society is maybe around 200 years old. We have no idea whatsoever how sustainable our current lifestyle is.

rrrazdan 15y ago

And the major unfair point is that the developed countries, after having exploited and polluted their way to prosperity, want equal cuts from the developing world.[1] [1]http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/10/content_8519797.htm http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/engli...

ThomPete 15y ago

I think many people are missing Lomborgs basic point. It's not just blind faith in technology but rather technology is the best choice we have now, so instead of using trillions on political statements of intention, let's use them where it matters and that is in trying to innovate and engineer our way out of some of the issues.

Tichy 15y ago
How does a political statement cost trillions? The information contained in the sentence "let's use the money where it matters most" is zero. How do you figure out where it matters most? The fact is: if people can exploit some loophole (like blowing dirt into the air instead of installing expensive filters), they will do so. They don't really have an incentive to do otherwise. It doesn't have to be laws that gives them an incentive - there could be "transparency", customers could prefer to buy "clean" stuff, hence producers would have an incentive to produce clean. Without such an incentive, nothing will happen.
- acegopher 15y ago
  I think the original comment about political statements costing trillions are when say the government subsidizes corn ethanol. There is good consensus that corn ethanol is energy negative, and that it doesn't result in cleaner air or less greenhouse gases due to production costs. This mis-allocation of capital hinders development of truly better alternatives, and sets back innovation. These setbacks, beyond the cost of the subsidy and the lack of improvement in the areas targeted, do cost trillions.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I dislike most of the government actions that are supposed to help, but I think it is confusing the discussion to mix together things that could be done, should be done, have been done, and so on. Ultimately I think Lomborg is just a troll, and lumping people together into fake classes is a tried and proven technique for trolling. It gets people worked up because they don't want to be associated with certain other people, and stirs discussion towards petty battles rather than solving the problem. Just because some government wasted billions, doesn't imply every possible political action would be a waste of billions.

nhaehnle 15y ago

The author does not acknowledge the point that e.g. air quality has improved precisely because people have complained about it. The technological developments and business investments in filtering and related technologies would not have happened without environmental groups putting up a fight. In a similar way, groups shouting about unsustainability are the ones who actually get people to think about alternatives, which in turn plays one part in moving technology forward. Of course technology is moved forward by other things as well. But don't underestimate the impact of young people taking up PhDs in relevant subjects partly because of the high visibility of the debate about sustainability.

Tichy 15y ago

We got lucky a few times and now have enjoyed a comparatively long period of time without serious problems. Relatively long time being one generation, so we don't really remember what it feels like to go hungry, struggle to survive in a war and stuff like that. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that bad things can't happen again, just because we don't remember them. In Japan they had ancient stones in the land warning about places where previous Tsunamis had hit. Unfortunately nobody of the "younger generations" cared about them anymore... This attitude of "technology will sort it out every time" is just stupid and not really supported by history. I have no doubt that humans will survive, somehow. Doesn't mean that there can't be turmoil, millions of deaths and so on on the way anymore.

danparsonson 15y ago

I think there are a couple of points that the article skips over: 1) The planet's human population is much greater than it was even 50 years ago (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+earth http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_...) and continues to rise 2) We still don't fully understand the impact of widespread habit and species loss 1) is important because each person requires a minimum amount of energy, in whatever form, to sustain them, so we need to improve our technology year-on-year just to stay at the same level of 'resource drain'. 2) is important because the idea that the natural world will recuperate once we've developed more sympathetic ways of existing with it may actually be flawed. There is some evidence to suggest that the biosphere is a self-regulating system of which we are now breaking or removing many parts. Any such system, however resilient, can only stand so much of that before it collapses. Of course technological development is crucial to our long term survival, but in my opinion this doesn't make short term fixes irrelevant.

hkolek 15y ago
ad 1: http://overpopulationisamyth.com http://overpopulationisamyth.com
- bjelkeman-again 15y ago
  That is a very shallow set of arguments from a self confessed pro-life group. A better place to start understanding the complexities and impact on environment from a large population is probably Nature’s special on planetary boundaries. http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/inde...
- danparsonson 15y ago
  That discusses the effect of population growth on poverty - where does it talk about the effect of population growth on the environment?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

hootmon 15y ago

According to this Robber Baron apologist, I am 10 times better off than I was in the 50s. Lets see, my dad, in the fifties could afford from his average salary to buy a new car every 2 years. Guess what in my so called better life, I buy a new car every 15 years. yea thats progress. I think this tool lumps the progress of the top 2% in with the rest of us smucks to come up with his baloney good news. The average wage buys less today than it did years ago, plus the average wage is falling and benefits are disappearing. The good news just keeps coming...

tomjen3 15y ago
But the car you can buy has more safety and comfort features than the one your dad could buy back then.
api 15y ago
But the car you bought then every two years didn't last as long, wasn't as safe, wasn't as comfortable, got worse gas mileage, didn't accelerate as well, had no power steering, etc. But I do agree that the middle class is in trouble in America. Today to be middle class you need at least a BS degree or equivalent skills and you have to constantly re-educate, and that bar appears to be rising steadily.
yesbabyyes 15y ago
I think this is the case: In the fifties, there were a lot fewer people who were as rich as your dad, than there are people today who are as rich as you. At the same time, more people today want and can afford cars and other expensive things. Thus, even though we are constantly using resources more efficiently, you are competing with more people for resources today than your father in the fifties. This is natural and a good thing: If Earth can't sustain very many people buying cars every 2 years, then we can't buy new cars every 2 years. We have to use resources more efficiently. It's a similar situation with fuel: For a long time, we built stronger engines that consumed the same amount of fuel, instead of building engines that used less fuel for more efficient use. Later that trend reversed. A similar thing happened with computers and their energy use. I hope my kids won't have to buy more than one car in their life.

erikstarck 15y ago

I'm surprised by all the negative comments. Lomborg makes the simple suggestion to rely on the most proven processes we have to solve problems: science, technology and trade. How can this in a community of hackers and entrepreneurs be so provocative?

wgren 15y ago
That is a false dichotomy - lots of people suggest we rely on science and technology, that is not what many people dislike about Lomborg. Well, it is not what I dislike about him anyway, I can't speak for everyone. Arguing against him is not arguing against science. Actually, it is my respect for science that makes me wary of him. He always seem to suggest simple populist solutions to complex problems.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  The populist solutions are the political summits that year after year claim to want to solve the worlds pollution yet do nothing.
igrekel 15y ago
Well, my personal annoyance with that is that it is often used to say: "See the problem will resolve itself by itself, or someone else will do it so we don't have to work on it". The other thing is that while its true that in the past, the problems eventually became irrelevant, I don't think it is predictable and I don't believe we should make a law out of that. Maybe it is a fluke or maybe the timing could be off next time. I don't believe there is a a force that gives us a right to exist, a magical mechanism that makes us pull out ourselves out of any trouble. We have to do it ourselves. I understand we should hear this as "Just don't throw yourselves around like headless chickens" but what I hear is just "Don't worry, do nothing, don't care" and that is not at all inline with being an entrepreneur.
api 15y ago
Because we're also a community of scientists. Entrepreneurship and trade can do a lot, but it cannot violate the laws of physics. Peak oil (and gas, and coal) is physics. The laws of physics are absolute. The lost energy from declining fossil fuel EROEI must be either replaced or the demand must be destroyed. Replacing all that energy seems very unlikely... I read about this problem a lot. Demand destruction can occur through efficiency improvements or through simply not buying, not driving, not using. If that's not enough, demand destruction can occur through war, famine, and death. The point is that this will happen if we can't make up the gap, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it. Nature doesn't care.

khafra 15y ago

> In fact, would-be catastrophes have regularly been pushed aside throughout human history, and so often because of innovation and technological development. We never just continue to do the same old thing. We innovate and avoid the anticipated problems. The thing about the Anthropic Principle is that it only protects you in the past, not in the future. We're here now because our civilization overcame its past problems; but any speculator can tell you that past performance is no guarantee of future results.

api 15y ago
The thing we really have to come to terms with is that the future is unpredictable. Both the "doomers" and the pollyannas fall down here. Past performance says nothing whatsoever about future performance. Nice well-behaved Newtonian systems are amenable to prediction by mathematical regression. Messy, complex, chaotic living systems are not. Everything changes, and changes how it changes, and changes how it changes how it changes, and ...

Zakharov 15y ago

I think Lomborg's got a good argument in favor of a conclusion he leaves unstated (and may, in fact, not favor) - that some portion of the money governments would spend on sustainability should instead be spent on finding a proactive solution to climate change, e.g. extracting large quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. Doing nothing and hoping someone independently solves the problem strikes me as an unacceptable risk; there is little market incentive at the moment to reduce environmental damage. A carbon-trading scheme would create such an incentive, but would no doubt create its own inefficiencies. Markets are great at dealing with resource shortages, for example whale oil, but quite bad at dealing with negative externalities, e.g. air pollution. It took government intervention to clean up London (I think? I don't have any sources on this). Spending money on proactive solutions encourages economic growth instead of discouraging it, and can lead to future benefits as "green technology" leads to new advances. On the other hand, it's somewhat risky as most avenues of inquiry will lead to dead ends, and any geo-engineering technology that becomes widely adopted could have nasty side-effects.

api 15y ago

This guy is ignoring the twin elephants in the living room: the unbelievably massive amount of energy that we obtain from fossil fuels, and the reliance on the modern financial system on continuous growth simply to maintain the status quo. These are linked issues. All fossil fuels will peak this century. It's not politics... it's physics. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. Actually, I suspect they will all peak before 2050. Many knowledgeable people think oil has already peaked. Peaking doesn't mean running out, it means exponentially declining EROEI (energy return on energy invested). There's plenty of oil left, but when it takes a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil we are out of oil. Nothing except maybe nuclear has the muscle right now to fill the gap for electricity generation. Just try to sell that now, post-Fukushima. Nothing except biofuel can presently fill the gap for transportation, and it is dubious that biofuels can scale to those levels. Does this mean apocalypse? I'm actually not a "doomer" per se. But consider this: as we pass peak on all fossil fuels, the vast majority of our surplus energy and labor will have to go to simply treading water and maintaining our standard of living in the face of rapidly declining energy availability. There's also going to be a lot of demand destruction: people buying less, traveling less, using less. All that does spell doom for our financial system. Even a short interruption in growth results in financial catastrophe, since without continuous growth you get a wave of debt defaults. It could be a very chaotic century. Edit: but on the upside, there's going to be a ton of entrepreneurial opportunities around saving energy, making energy, and storing energy. Personally I think IT isn't where it's at... if I wanted to get back into entrepreneurship now (and I might in the future) I'd get into something energy-related.

ap22213 15y ago

Nothing like standing up a straw man and then tearing it down. The situations that are cited in the article seem like apples when comparing to the situational oranges of today. A shaky foundation like this hardly seems like a good place to build a valid logical argument. But, it sure does look cool.

Tichy 15y ago

Just wondering, have science and free markets ever resolved a tragedy of the commons situation (except for destroying the resource)? I think the "original" solution for the sheep and lawns was to erect fences, which seems to me to be a purely political solution. It doesn't seem so different from issuing CO2 shares.

stayjin 15y ago

It is the irony of the tragic nature of human race: we are both, descendants of Promitheus, who courageously fought for our right to harness greater powers, but also of Pandora who just did not have the maturity to know what NOT to poke, It is so ironic, there are so many different diets, just to conceal the simple fact that if one eats excessively they will get fat and the simple fact that if one wants to be in good shape, there is a very simple straightforward answer, eat less move more. Instead we busy ourselves with the new " scientific breakthrough" that allows us to be eating bacon all year long and then drink the magic pill and wear our bikini just in time for the miss skinny contest. P.s. The interesting dude is Odisseas, who before going close ro the sirens, he assessed the risk and decided, to hear their sing but not