3 ms·

> The worse affected regions still have the highest natality rates. The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Perhaps we should tie reproducti

> The worse affected regions still have the highest natality rates. The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Perhaps we should tie reproductive rights to carbon footprint, to increase the proportion of low-pollution individuals. I'm only being half-sarcastic.

decremental 5y ago
They have low carbon footprints because they live in mud huts. I don't think they're going to be great stewards for the future of humanity. Modern civilization, that thing you're enjoying right now, was built by the people you want fewer of for some reason.
pengaru 5y ago
> The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Largely irrelevant. Every country aspires to increase their quality of life, burgeoning populations still living in the mud are just carbon time bombs. So, relevant in the negative sense of their per-capita output has nowhere to go but up, with a huge multiplier. It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts. In the film Before the Flood, there's a part focused on India which states they have ~300M people living without electricity. A population roughly the size of the USA. In the same part, representatives from India's government make clear that India has vast coal reserves and no intention of leaving those 300M people without electricity. You're looking at an overnight arrival of the US population from the dark to using lights and refrigerators. It's not like populations with low carbon output have all mastered some kind of low impact living. They're just poor and lagging behind the more wealthy nations, don't mistake it for a lack of intention to join the first-world.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline This is reductive, and possibly wrong. Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. As an example, most developing countries skipped large-scale POTS networks and went directly to wireless (GSM). The same is happening with solar and wind energy; because the sparse electric distribution networks are sparse, energy is generated at its point of use, which favors solar and wind. Our "legacy" countries are the problem because we cannot wean ourselves off pollution without taking a hit in our lifestyles. The problem is in the here and now, not some future "time bomb", and it's not solved by tweaking at the margins by limiting population growth of those that live the greenest lifestyles. The problem with the climate change "debate" is that nobody wants to make changes - it's always the other who has to make sacrifices.
  - surge 5y ago
    If that were completely true China would be doing it now. We wouldn't see countries shutting down nuclear programs and replacing them with coal. But yes, I agree that if a tech is freely available there is opportunity for countries to build out with what's the best available then legacy tech, the same way China has 4G/5G everywhere because its all new infrastructure, they never bothered putting up a 3G tower.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      Using transport of information as exemplary strikes me as such extreme cherry-picking as to be disingenuous. It's relatively trivial to move data wirelessly. Physical infrastructure like housing, roads, bridges, are where the real challenges lie. Cement production alone is a huge co2 problem. Even if all the vehicles of the future are EVs, there's a huge amount of resources put into manufacturing, delivering, sheltering, and operating those per-capita. Despite its vast HSR network, China has still exceeded US car sales every year since 2009 [0]. [0] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sales-by-key-markets-2005-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sa...
  - pengaru 5y ago
    > Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. Nothing I said cast arriving at the finish line as following in the exact footsteps as the predecessors to get there. Obviously the definition of and means of achieving "modern living" is constantly evolving. Our most recent example would arguably be China, and CO2-free automobile-free utopia it very much is not. It will be interesting to see what form India arriving in the first world will take. I'm hoping for solar panels on every home and skipping a coal-fueled power grid much like the cell network you mention, as it does appear to be the obvious wireless equivalent for power. I don't think that alone is sufficient though. > This is reductive, and possibly wrong Everything is "possibly wrong", what a pointless thing to say. What's probable?
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  > on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts These days, is it still realistic to hold on to a Whig view of history?

decremental 5y ago

They have low carbon footprints because they live in mud huts. I don't think they're going to be great stewards for the future of humanity. Modern civilization, that thing you're enjoying right now, was built by the people you want fewer of for some reason.

pengaru 5y ago

> The same regions have the lowest per-capita carbon output. Largely irrelevant. Every country aspires to increase their quality of life, burgeoning populations still living in the mud are just carbon time bombs. So, relevant in the negative sense of their per-capita output has nowhere to go but up, with a huge multiplier. It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts. In the film Before the Flood, there's a part focused on India which states they have ~300M people living without electricity. A population roughly the size of the USA. In the same part, representatives from India's government make clear that India has vast coal reserves and no intention of leaving those 300M people without electricity. You're looking at an overnight arrival of the US population from the dark to using lights and refrigerators. It's not like populations with low carbon output have all mastered some kind of low impact living. They're just poor and lagging behind the more wealthy nations, don't mistake it for a lack of intention to join the first-world.

sangnoir 5y ago
> It helps to view "third-world" as simply arriving in third place at the finish line of modern living; on a long enough timeline This is reductive, and possibly wrong. Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. As an example, most developing countries skipped large-scale POTS networks and went directly to wireless (GSM). The same is happening with solar and wind energy; because the sparse electric distribution networks are sparse, energy is generated at its point of use, which favors solar and wind. Our "legacy" countries are the problem because we cannot wean ourselves off pollution without taking a hit in our lifestyles. The problem is in the here and now, not some future "time bomb", and it's not solved by tweaking at the margins by limiting population growth of those that live the greenest lifestyles. The problem with the climate change "debate" is that nobody wants to make changes - it's always the other who has to make sacrifices.
- surge 5y ago
  If that were completely true China would be doing it now. We wouldn't see countries shutting down nuclear programs and replacing them with coal. But yes, I agree that if a tech is freely available there is opportunity for countries to build out with what's the best available then legacy tech, the same way China has 4G/5G everywhere because its all new infrastructure, they never bothered putting up a 3G tower.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    Using transport of information as exemplary strikes me as such extreme cherry-picking as to be disingenuous. It's relatively trivial to move data wirelessly. Physical infrastructure like housing, roads, bridges, are where the real challenges lie. Cement production alone is a huge co2 problem. Even if all the vehicles of the future are EVs, there's a huge amount of resources put into manufacturing, delivering, sheltering, and operating those per-capita. Despite its vast HSR network, China has still exceeded US car sales every year since 2009 [0]. [0] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sales-by-key-markets-2005-2020 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-car-sa...
- pengaru 5y ago
  > Developing countries do not have to follow the paths of developed ones; they can simply skip over the less useful bits. Nothing I said cast arriving at the finish line as following in the exact footsteps as the predecessors to get there. Obviously the definition of and means of achieving "modern living" is constantly evolving. Our most recent example would arguably be China, and CO2-free automobile-free utopia it very much is not. It will be interesting to see what form India arriving in the first world will take. I'm hoping for solar panels on every home and skipping a coal-fueled power grid much like the cell network you mention, as it does appear to be the obvious wireless equivalent for power. I don't think that alone is sufficient though. > This is reductive, and possibly wrong Everything is "possibly wrong", what a pointless thing to say. What's probable?
Apocryphon 5y ago
> on a long enough timeline, there are no more mud huts These days, is it still realistic to hold on to a Whig view of history?