4 ms·

We're all a part of this. I've been asking myself questions, at an increasing rate lately, like "where does all this material come from?", "who makes all this s

by bmitc 5y ago

We're all a part of this. I've been asking myself questions, at an increasing rate lately, like "where does all this material come from?", "who makes all this stuff?", "what's the effect of making this?', etc., and any hint of an answer leads to nowhere good quite quickly. That is especially true when you consider the human and other animal elements. Just looking into the trash makes you realize the insane amount of single-use material that is used for daily life. Search the food Amazon throws away, including masses within the usable dates. Even things that are not single use makes my mind be boggled where all the stuff comes from. Humanity's obsession with growth and scale is like a dark force we have to actively fight against, but the obsession is winning handily. And it feels that less and less are pushing against it, with many pushing for it.

Syonyk 5y ago
If you'd like another depressing read, Derrick Jensen's "Bright Green Lies" is a good one. It does the very uncomfortable math on "Ok, so, you want to power civilization with wind/solar/nuclear/etc? What does that look like in mountain tops removed, valleys filled with tailings, habitats blown to pieces, etc?" The answers aren't good. A number of the environmental groups have subtly shifted over the past decade or two from "How can we protect the environment?" to "How can we maintain industrial civilization levels of energy consumption and all our conveniences, but carbon neutral?" They are not the same question or issue, even though they're often confused.
- onethought 5y ago
  Aren’t solar panels made from sand/silicone? Wouldn’t a solar run world look like a place where our sand deserts are instead covered in panels. You don’t even need that many (in space) to power the whole planet. Not sure about lithium, but I suspect it’s not terrible as we don’t need that much.
- bmitc 5y ago
  I agree on your last point. It's very sad. An example I've come up with is fusion. The many scientists and engineers working on fusion, and the fans on the sidelines, are a bit too wide-eyed that it will "save" humanity. While it will obviously be much cleaner than existing energy production plants, I predict its cleanness will be outstripped by its enabling of even greater consumption. I very much hold little hope for civilization at the rate we're going. Like you say, we've gone from trying to be in a sustainable balance to just trying to keep up. Technology is just allowing us to destroy everything about the planet and even our own societies. And thank you for the reference. Although, I'm not sure I can take reading and watching more depressing material. It feels like learning how to scream into the wind.
brewtide 5y ago
We cull deer populations (etc) so they don't run out of resources but fail to see any connection to our environmental concerns. Not advocating for culling people, but certainly the footprint we have deemed necessary. Endless growth isn't possible but most economic systems demand that it happen. Nothing remarkable about anything here. The machine respects people as much as it respects. the environment; it doesn't.
- HelixEndeavor 5y ago
  That's just the pickle though - short of straight up eugenics there aren't really any legitimate "solutions" to the endless growth problem humanity faces.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I don't think it was your intention to say eugenics is a legitimate solution, so I'll go on record saying it isn't a solution. It's a recurring problem across the world.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    Any legitimate solution to even just population growth would see the 1% of the 1% have less wealth, and that’s the real reason why any solution will never work. That’s not even addressing culling economic growth and addressing things like wealth distribution and equality, which would be necessary for setting fair population growth constraints. Humanity is damned simply because of, well humanity. We’re chimps at heart and don’t want to share.

by bmitc 5y ago

Syonyk 5y ago

If you'd like another depressing read, Derrick Jensen's "Bright Green Lies" is a good one. It does the very uncomfortable math on "Ok, so, you want to power civilization with wind/solar/nuclear/etc? What does that look like in mountain tops removed, valleys filled with tailings, habitats blown to pieces, etc?" The answers aren't good. A number of the environmental groups have subtly shifted over the past decade or two from "How can we protect the environment?" to "How can we maintain industrial civilization levels of energy consumption and all our conveniences, but carbon neutral?" They are not the same question or issue, even though they're often confused.

onethought 5y ago
Aren’t solar panels made from sand/silicone? Wouldn’t a solar run world look like a place where our sand deserts are instead covered in panels. You don’t even need that many (in space) to power the whole planet. Not sure about lithium, but I suspect it’s not terrible as we don’t need that much.
bmitc 5y ago
I agree on your last point. It's very sad. An example I've come up with is fusion. The many scientists and engineers working on fusion, and the fans on the sidelines, are a bit too wide-eyed that it will "save" humanity. While it will obviously be much cleaner than existing energy production plants, I predict its cleanness will be outstripped by its enabling of even greater consumption. I very much hold little hope for civilization at the rate we're going. Like you say, we've gone from trying to be in a sustainable balance to just trying to keep up. Technology is just allowing us to destroy everything about the planet and even our own societies. And thank you for the reference. Although, I'm not sure I can take reading and watching more depressing material. It feels like learning how to scream into the wind.

brewtide 5y ago

We cull deer populations (etc) so they don't run out of resources but fail to see any connection to our environmental concerns. Not advocating for culling people, but certainly the footprint we have deemed necessary. Endless growth isn't possible but most economic systems demand that it happen. Nothing remarkable about anything here. The machine respects people as much as it respects. the environment; it doesn't.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago
That's just the pickle though - short of straight up eugenics there aren't really any legitimate "solutions" to the endless growth problem humanity faces.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I don't think it was your intention to say eugenics is a legitimate solution, so I'll go on record saying it isn't a solution. It's a recurring problem across the world.
- bmitc 5y ago
  Any legitimate solution to even just population growth would see the 1% of the 1% have less wealth, and that’s the real reason why any solution will never work. That’s not even addressing culling economic growth and addressing things like wealth distribution and equality, which would be necessary for setting fair population growth constraints. Humanity is damned simply because of, well humanity. We’re chimps at heart and don’t want to share.