3 ms·

Did you read the paper I linked to? That is precisely the entire point of "Why are we not acting to save the world?". We need to apply more science and technolo

Did you read the paper I linked to? That is precisely the entire point of "Why are we not acting to save the world?". We need to apply more science and technology in the right places.

Robotbeat 5y ago
I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. We aren’t nearing depletion of fossil fuels (unfortunately!) but have much larger reserves than when that was written. Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world and indeed under population and an aging population is rapidly becoming a much larger threat in much of the West and Far East. Overpopulation wasn’t solved by intelligently overcoming evolutionary sexual urges but by invention and distribution of contraceptives combined with personal entertainment technology (“electricity is the most powerful contraception”), etc. I find documents like that still highly influential but in many ways orthogonal to how we need to solve our current problems. Some lessons still apply but other points proved painfully wrong and sometimes backwards or at least irrelevant. People need to update their thinking from 70s era ideas like those of Limits to Growth. Degrowther mindset in many ways is a rebirth of those 70s era ideas, and I think Degrowth as a movement is largely counterproductive for addressing climate change (although the sense of urgency is important!).
- miltondts 5y ago
  > I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. Last I checked, the threat of nuclear war is not over. Sure it doesn't seem as likely today, but the bombs still exist and if our current prosperity was to halt, it seems their use would become more and more probable. By capitalism do you mean globalization? I agree governments have lost much of their power due to how powerful current corporations are, which was enabled by technology that allowed globalization. So there is less incentive for war nowadays. However when things get though.. cue all the impending changes that climate change will bring... I'm not so sure the threat won't reemerge. > Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world. It seems overpopulation is as much of a problem today, as it was back then. It is not mentioned directly, but every time you hear about global warming, water scarcity, over-fishing, the great pacific garbage patch, etc. All of these things are problems of scale. Or do you believe that with 100 thousand humans we would have these problems? I agree with the oil, but also notice your omission of pollution. As for the larger point of resource depletion, I'm not so sure we are any better than we were in 1980. Overall I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of the paper is to highlight how our behaviors are selected for a past when they were beneficial, but currently we are changing our environment at an increasingly faster rate due to technology (and this is the point of the von Neumann paper also). Our methods for dealing with the problems that arise are not good enough.

Did you read the paper I linked to? That is precisely the entire point of "Why are we not acting to save the world?". We need to apply more science and technology in the right places.

Robotbeat 5y ago

I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. We aren’t nearing depletion of fossil fuels (unfortunately!) but have much larger reserves than when that was written. Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world and indeed under population and an aging population is rapidly becoming a much larger threat in much of the West and Far East. Overpopulation wasn’t solved by intelligently overcoming evolutionary sexual urges but by invention and distribution of contraceptives combined with personal entertainment technology (“electricity is the most powerful contraception”), etc. I find documents like that still highly influential but in many ways orthogonal to how we need to solve our current problems. Some lessons still apply but other points proved painfully wrong and sometimes backwards or at least irrelevant. People need to update their thinking from 70s era ideas like those of Limits to Growth. Degrowther mindset in many ways is a rebirth of those 70s era ideas, and I think Degrowth as a movement is largely counterproductive for addressing climate change (although the sense of urgency is important!).

miltondts 5y ago
> I read it. It’s clearly decades out of date. The specter of species-ending nuclear war was not ended by utopian visions of cooperation… it was the triumph of capitalism, not the ending of capitalism, that arguably coincided with the massive reduction in risk of nuclear war. Last I checked, the threat of nuclear war is not over. Sure it doesn't seem as likely today, but the bombs still exist and if our current prosperity was to halt, it seems their use would become more and more probable. By capitalism do you mean globalization? I agree governments have lost much of their power due to how powerful current corporations are, which was enabled by technology that allowed globalization. So there is less incentive for war nowadays. However when things get though.. cue all the impending changes that climate change will bring... I'm not so sure the threat won't reemerge. > Overpopulation is no longer a threat in most of the world. It seems overpopulation is as much of a problem today, as it was back then. It is not mentioned directly, but every time you hear about global warming, water scarcity, over-fishing, the great pacific garbage patch, etc. All of these things are problems of scale. Or do you believe that with 100 thousand humans we would have these problems? I agree with the oil, but also notice your omission of pollution. As for the larger point of resource depletion, I'm not so sure we are any better than we were in 1980. Overall I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The purpose of the paper is to highlight how our behaviors are selected for a past when they were beneficial, but currently we are changing our environment at an increasingly faster rate due to technology (and this is the point of the von Neumann paper also). Our methods for dealing with the problems that arise are not good enough.