3 ms·

> these are all beyond hard I seem to remember some guy saying something about that. We’ve never let the fact that something doesn’t exist yet stop us. We are

> these are all beyond hard I seem to remember some guy saying something about that. We’ve never let the fact that something doesn’t exist yet stop us. We are a species of inventors. We didn’t stay huddled naked in caves because they work and we got them for free. We aren’t meant to be like the rest of the ecosystem that mutely accepts its fate. We know we can die but we also reject the natural order of succumbing to predation, famine, disease and exposure. This planet is a cradle that we cannot lie in forever. Some day it will be dust and we will have to learn to walk amongst the stars.

cryptonector 5y ago
A voice of reason. Thank you. Indeed, when we lived in caves, there were only so many of them. We totally blew past the cave sustainability model thousands of years ago. I'm not saying we should be cavalier about pushing current limits, but I also wouldn't be cavalier about doing things to hurt today's humans due to fears that are not well founded (because, again, negative population growth is now baked in to the world population pyramid, so that soon we won't be pushing the planet's limits any longer).
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  > soon we won't be pushing the planet's limits any longer What constitutes as 'pushing limits' depends on the kind of planet that is considered tolerable. For many conservation-minded people, pushing the limits happened well before 7 billion. A population shrinking to a quarter of it's size is only considered undesirable to some because the economy doesn't factor in the externalities of having a large population - e.g., climate change, reduced access to nature, increased stress, polluted environment, species loss, food chain collapse. The solution is to no longer permit these to be externalities, and I don't see that happening without government intervention on a global scale. As for anyone concerned about an ageing population, within the next few decades human labor shortages will be solved with automation - to the point that there will be a shrinking job market. As for caring for the elderly, they will have access to new mobility technology, and life extension - at first expensive, but then trickling down to poorer people before 2 generations.

cryptonector 5y ago

A voice of reason. Thank you. Indeed, when we lived in caves, there were only so many of them. We totally blew past the cave sustainability model thousands of years ago. I'm not saying we should be cavalier about pushing current limits, but I also wouldn't be cavalier about doing things to hurt today's humans due to fears that are not well founded (because, again, negative population growth is now baked in to the world population pyramid, so that soon we won't be pushing the planet's limits any longer).

h0l0cube 5y ago
> soon we won't be pushing the planet's limits any longer What constitutes as 'pushing limits' depends on the kind of planet that is considered tolerable. For many conservation-minded people, pushing the limits happened well before 7 billion. A population shrinking to a quarter of it's size is only considered undesirable to some because the economy doesn't factor in the externalities of having a large population - e.g., climate change, reduced access to nature, increased stress, polluted environment, species loss, food chain collapse. The solution is to no longer permit these to be externalities, and I don't see that happening without government intervention on a global scale. As for anyone concerned about an ageing population, within the next few decades human labor shortages will be solved with automation - to the point that there will be a shrinking job market. As for caring for the elderly, they will have access to new mobility technology, and life extension - at first expensive, but then trickling down to poorer people before 2 generations.