5 ms·

> The truth is, humanity can continue to be more productive and efficient for millions more years It’s not truth. It’s a form of techno-libertarianism borderi

> The truth is, humanity can continue to be more productive and efficient for millions more years It’s not truth. It’s a form of techno-libertarianism bordering on religion. I can’t find a single working scientist in any relevant field who believes this claim. Most scientists believe we are on our way out, along with the biosphere we’ve destroyed.

missedthecue 5y ago
I know I'm not going to change your mind because that would require changing your whole worldview, but I would push back on the notion that this is a "techno-libertarian religion". It certainly has experts that endorse the view. A whole field of them. In fact, it has its own term in the discipline of economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics)
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  How likely is it that phenomena will cause a net improvement with population and per-person consumption increases? Jevons Paradox also comes into play.
  - worik 5y ago
    Does Jevons Paradox extend indefinitely? What I mean is, e.g., when the cost of energy drops people's energy bills in general do not go down, the have warmer homes. That has been known for a while. But is it still true if everybody can keep their houses at 21 degrees permanently? At thatr point does a reduction in energy costs reduce their bills or do they find something else to spend the energy on?
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      Judging by the lifestyles of billionaires I don't think human appetites should be underestimated. Especially on a planet of billions of people.
      - Earw0rm 5y ago
        Billionaires tbf are a self-selecting sample of people who made it past $1m, $10m and $100m, and still decided to keep going. As a % of the population, I don't know how many have those traits - 10%? 1%? - but with a population also numbered in billions, "enough to totally screw the planet" is a reasonable guess.
        worik 5y ago
        Yes. They need treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
- kergonath 5y ago
  You can be an expert and a techno-libertarian ideologist, though. Particularly in economics, which is a field rife with unverifiable dogma. Besides, considering that we are living on a finite world, we don’t need to merely decouple economy from materials, because any use at all will at some point exhaust available resources. Sure, we can say “fuck everything, I’m going to keep going on as usual because in 100 years I’ll be dead and they’ll have that one wonderful technological panacea that will change everything (be it Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, or anything else)”. I don’t know how to call that attitude except for “techno-libertarian dogmatism”.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    We're living in a finite world, but we're going to have finite growth.
landemva 5y ago
Engine pollution and particulates have dropped significantly over the past decade. Much of this is due to tighter tolerances and electronic controls.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Yes, and on the other hand, there are more cars on the road. Also, let's wave the magic wand and make all cars non-polluting during operation (not even dust from the brake rotors). Where do the natural materials which are used to make the car come from? What about the materials which make the road network that the cars drive on? What about the natural environments which get turned into suburbs because mobility is "easy"? How much of the surface of the earth is co-opted for human-dominated and human-determined?
b1daly 5y ago
Really? Like in the next 200 years? That’s ridiculous. The scenarios from IPCC envision a future of prosperity, albeit at a reduced level than if we could somehow drastically cut carbon emissions.

missedthecue 5y ago

I know I'm not going to change your mind because that would require changing your whole worldview, but I would push back on the notion that this is a "techno-libertarian religion". It certainly has experts that endorse the view. A whole field of them. In fact, it has its own term in the discipline of economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics)

paulryanrogers 5y ago
How likely is it that phenomena will cause a net improvement with population and per-person consumption increases? Jevons Paradox also comes into play.
- worik 5y ago
  Does Jevons Paradox extend indefinitely? What I mean is, e.g., when the cost of energy drops people's energy bills in general do not go down, the have warmer homes. That has been known for a while. But is it still true if everybody can keep their houses at 21 degrees permanently? At thatr point does a reduction in energy costs reduce their bills or do they find something else to spend the energy on?
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Judging by the lifestyles of billionaires I don't think human appetites should be underestimated. Especially on a planet of billions of people.
    - Earw0rm 5y ago
      Billionaires tbf are a self-selecting sample of people who made it past $1m, $10m and $100m, and still decided to keep going. As a % of the population, I don't know how many have those traits - 10%? 1%? - but with a population also numbered in billions, "enough to totally screw the planet" is a reasonable guess.
      - worik 5y ago
        Yes. They need treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
kergonath 5y ago
You can be an expert and a techno-libertarian ideologist, though. Particularly in economics, which is a field rife with unverifiable dogma. Besides, considering that we are living on a finite world, we don’t need to merely decouple economy from materials, because any use at all will at some point exhaust available resources. Sure, we can say “fuck everything, I’m going to keep going on as usual because in 100 years I’ll be dead and they’ll have that one wonderful technological panacea that will change everything (be it Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, or anything else)”. I don’t know how to call that attitude except for “techno-libertarian dogmatism”.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  We're living in a finite world, but we're going to have finite growth.

landemva 5y ago

Engine pollution and particulates have dropped significantly over the past decade. Much of this is due to tighter tolerances and electronic controls.

mellavora 5y ago
Yes, and on the other hand, there are more cars on the road. Also, let's wave the magic wand and make all cars non-polluting during operation (not even dust from the brake rotors). Where do the natural materials which are used to make the car come from? What about the materials which make the road network that the cars drive on? What about the natural environments which get turned into suburbs because mobility is "easy"? How much of the surface of the earth is co-opted for human-dominated and human-determined?

b1daly 5y ago

Really? Like in the next 200 years? That’s ridiculous. The scenarios from IPCC envision a future of prosperity, albeit at a reduced level than if we could somehow drastically cut carbon emissions.