3 ms·

Alright, I’ll try to pitch the counter argument. The current green movement narrative is the same it has always been: living within our means. The current foss

by Joeri 5y ago

Alright, I’ll try to pitch the counter argument. The current green movement narrative is the same it has always been: living within our means. The current fossil fuel driven economy is objectively unsustainable. Yes, you can geo-engineer your way out of the heat problem, but that doesn’t solve all the other problems resulting from unsustainable growth, and who knows what fresh problems this will create. What the green movement wants and has always wanted is a conservative growth model, where the growth is not based on the depletion of finite resources. It is mostly the promoters of unsustainable growth that twist this into an anti-growth narrative. Now, techno-optimists say we can solve the problems created by unsustainable growth with more technology, and this may be true. But it is asking everyone to take a pretty large gamble on technology that does not exist yet. The conservative strategy is sustainability, and that goes much wider than just solving climate change.

pards 5y ago
Watch "Don't look up"
- NavinF 5y ago
  https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/movie-review-dont-look-up?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/movie-review-dont-look...
popcube 5y ago
yes, until now, scientists always can save us. but they just need one time...
- hedora 5y ago
  Scientists have done more than enough. The issue now is entrenched interests blocking progress. We had all the technology we needed to go carbon neutral back in the 1980's. Back then, even the American Petroleum Institute (yes, the planet burners) were raising alarms over CO2 and global warming. We have many technological doublings ahead of us before technology fails to provide opportunities for growth. That's not the problem. The problem is that our economic system is terrible at pricing in externalities. Edit: Come to think of it, the American Petroleum Institute scientists said the exact same thing back then. Skip to the last page: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Force-Meeting-1980.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Fo...
  - freedomben 5y ago
    We may have had the technology in the 80s, but the economics is only just getting close. We could have switched but it would have meant a drastic reduction in quality of life for everyone who wasn't rich. We might still be in 80/90s technology had we done that, because the wealthier we are as a society, the faster we can develop technology.
totetsu 5y ago
I'm reminded of this story of how the Chicago River ended up being electrified. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965335352/from-electrifying-rivers-to-dimming-the-sun-how-humans-try-and-fail-to-master-na https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965335352/from-electrifying-r...
oceanplexian 5y ago
There is no such thing as sustainable growth. Eventually, one day, sooner or later a very unsustainable chunk of high speed space rock will hit the planet and wipe us out, or some other completely natural and “green” disaster, like a supervolcanic eruption, as has happened repeatedly in history. The only thing that will matter is if we advance our technology to a point to divert the problem or make ourselves sufficiently resilient from the problem. There is no “if” here, it’s statistically guaranteed. As far as I know, the best way for humanity to advance technology is with growth. More people with a higher standard of living means more teachers, scientists, artists, engineers, and leaders. We need those people because hiding in a cave is exactly the wrong thing to do.
- FredPret 5y ago
  From this point of view, which I certainly share, the responsible thing to do is to grow as fast as humanly possible until we are spread far and wide across the solar system, while also hedging our bets and making an effort to grow in the cleanest way that doesn’t slow us down.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Grow fast, but sustainable enough that we don't collapse society before we have self-sustaining colonies beyond earth. Then rinse and repeat.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  > The only thing that will matter is if we advance our technology This is your objective to meet your end which is survival. I don't agree with it, but I'll respond as if I took it for a given. > As far as I know, the best way for humanity to advance technology is with growth. What you mean by growth here matters. More people with a higher standard of living is two types of growth. One is economic the other is population. But there are other dimensions to grow across. For example, peacefulness has produced just outstanding yields in many valuable areas such as productivity, research, and ecological protection. But peacefulness did not arise out of nothing. It took lives to create our world which is peaceful for most people. Real people working on arms control agreements and diplomacy. Improving education is similar. You could argue that education requires resources, and that is true to a point, but we are well, well past that point. North Korea is capable of nuclear weapons and rocketry. Most elementary school programs can get by on $100 worth of reusable books a year and some paper and pens. Now the green model has some fatal flaws, and there is a reason I'm a Canadian Liberal not a Green, but the core thrust of Green thinking is a good thing in my opinion because I've found that, in general, prevention is more efficient than cure because it's easier to align incentives with prevention. One of the problems with incentive alignment is that the international system is anarchistic and individual choices are unpredictable and given over to passions that are often unethical. This leads to unavoidable arms races (literal and figurative) across multiple aspects of society and politics. So, for example, China builds new coal power plants because they're in a power competition with the West and to build wind turbines instead would cost a non-trivial portion of their GDP and institutional focus. Anyway, in summary, yes with what you outlined as your objective economic growth matters, but so do other forms of growth. I would even include spiritual growth (or decline) matter too. People are acting incredibly sanctimonious and paranoid right now and it isn't helping their more charitable instincts.

by Joeri 5y ago

pards 5y ago

Watch "Don't look up"

NavinF 5y ago
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/movie-review-dont-look-up?utm_source=url https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/movie-review-dont-look...

popcube 5y ago

yes, until now, scientists always can save us. but they just need one time...

hedora 5y ago
Scientists have done more than enough. The issue now is entrenched interests blocking progress. We had all the technology we needed to go carbon neutral back in the 1980's. Back then, even the American Petroleum Institute (yes, the planet burners) were raising alarms over CO2 and global warming. We have many technological doublings ahead of us before technology fails to provide opportunities for growth. That's not the problem. The problem is that our economic system is terrible at pricing in externalities. Edit: Come to think of it, the American Petroleum Institute scientists said the exact same thing back then. Skip to the last page: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Force-Meeting-1980.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3483045-AQ-9-Task-Fo...
- freedomben 5y ago
  We may have had the technology in the 80s, but the economics is only just getting close. We could have switched but it would have meant a drastic reduction in quality of life for everyone who wasn't rich. We might still be in 80/90s technology had we done that, because the wealthier we are as a society, the faster we can develop technology.

totetsu 5y ago

I'm reminded of this story of how the Chicago River ended up being electrified. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965335352/from-electrifying-rivers-to-dimming-the-sun-how-humans-try-and-fail-to-master-na https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965335352/from-electrifying-r...

oceanplexian 5y ago

There is no such thing as sustainable growth. Eventually, one day, sooner or later a very unsustainable chunk of high speed space rock will hit the planet and wipe us out, or some other completely natural and “green” disaster, like a supervolcanic eruption, as has happened repeatedly in history. The only thing that will matter is if we advance our technology to a point to divert the problem or make ourselves sufficiently resilient from the problem. There is no “if” here, it’s statistically guaranteed. As far as I know, the best way for humanity to advance technology is with growth. More people with a higher standard of living means more teachers, scientists, artists, engineers, and leaders. We need those people because hiding in a cave is exactly the wrong thing to do.

FredPret 5y ago
From this point of view, which I certainly share, the responsible thing to do is to grow as fast as humanly possible until we are spread far and wide across the solar system, while also hedging our bets and making an effort to grow in the cleanest way that doesn’t slow us down.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Grow fast, but sustainable enough that we don't collapse society before we have self-sustaining colonies beyond earth. Then rinse and repeat.
3pt14159 5y ago
> The only thing that will matter is if we advance our technology This is your objective to meet your end which is survival. I don't agree with it, but I'll respond as if I took it for a given. > As far as I know, the best way for humanity to advance technology is with growth. What you mean by growth here matters. More people with a higher standard of living is two types of growth. One is economic the other is population. But there are other dimensions to grow across. For example, peacefulness has produced just outstanding yields in many valuable areas such as productivity, research, and ecological protection. But peacefulness did not arise out of nothing. It took lives to create our world which is peaceful for most people. Real people working on arms control agreements and diplomacy. Improving education is similar. You could argue that education requires resources, and that is true to a point, but we are well, well past that point. North Korea is capable of nuclear weapons and rocketry. Most elementary school programs can get by on $100 worth of reusable books a year and some paper and pens. Now the green model has some fatal flaws, and there is a reason I'm a Canadian Liberal not a Green, but the core thrust of Green thinking is a good thing in my opinion because I've found that, in general, prevention is more efficient than cure because it's easier to align incentives with prevention. One of the problems with incentive alignment is that the international system is anarchistic and individual choices are unpredictable and given over to passions that are often unethical. This leads to unavoidable arms races (literal and figurative) across multiple aspects of society and politics. So, for example, China builds new coal power plants because they're in a power competition with the West and to build wind turbines instead would cost a non-trivial portion of their GDP and institutional focus. Anyway, in summary, yes with what you outlined as your objective economic growth matters, but so do other forms of growth. I would even include spiritual growth (or decline) matter too. People are acting incredibly sanctimonious and paranoid right now and it isn't helping their more charitable instincts.