3 ms·

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

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.
- freedomben 5y ago
  I tend to agree with you philosophically, but when it comes to implementation that's where I really struggle. How do you curtail either of the two types of growth? It seems like the only options include authoritarian and borderline human rights violating. A group of progressive countries could band together and try to invade China and force them to slow their growth, but even ignoring the ethicality of forcing our will on others, most people would agree that the death and suffering would be pretty bad. So far the best form of population control has been prosperity. Birth rates tend to fall as quality of life goes up (not always of course because there are many factors in that). The other option is outlawing reproduction much like China did for a long time. That seems questionable re: human rights also.
beepbooptheory 5y ago
I think if you are talking at that time scale, the imperative for humanity in particular to be the one to make that advancement is just anthro vanity. The history of humanity is such a relatively brief thing on the cosmic scale you are talking about, and yet in our brief time we have screwed things up massively for ourselves. But not necessarily for future species and human-like life. Its ok if we don't make it guys, there was species before us, and there will be some after us. The universe is vast. We are probably not even that special, but we can do our best and enjoy life and try to minimize the suffering that will certainly happen from our mistakes... to want to "win" anything beyond that will just cause more suffering. Its ok to admit we messed up, we couldn't know at the time that a global capitalism predicated on an unlimited nature would not end up great, the timeline of scientific discovery was not in out favor there. On all accounts we are most likely too late, its not anyone in particulars fault, its ok. Time is very vast, that can scare you or humble you.
screenbreakout 5y ago
I agree with the main argument, I question the means to get a higher standard of living. ATM it seems like rather than sustaining people we're sustaining their management by and for corporations... it seems like multiple layers and huge inefficiencies to get that QOL you speak of... I mean after all isn't leisure the mother of philosophy ? We treat time as something we don't have enough of...(not surprising as routines tend to contract the perception of time ) We treat humans as disposable, when they have more knowledge, experiences, social contacts the older they get... We revere money more than empathy (moreso in Western Europe, some developed countries or among those "who have") I'd suggest it's all a play by the politicians to remain in power, rather than let people decide (if they weren't working so much to sustain real-estate, rental, health care) We need to replace them by choosing them at random... I believe the term is Stochocracy

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.

freedomben 5y ago
I tend to agree with you philosophically, but when it comes to implementation that's where I really struggle. How do you curtail either of the two types of growth? It seems like the only options include authoritarian and borderline human rights violating. A group of progressive countries could band together and try to invade China and force them to slow their growth, but even ignoring the ethicality of forcing our will on others, most people would agree that the death and suffering would be pretty bad. So far the best form of population control has been prosperity. Birth rates tend to fall as quality of life goes up (not always of course because there are many factors in that). The other option is outlawing reproduction much like China did for a long time. That seems questionable re: human rights also.

beepbooptheory 5y ago

I think if you are talking at that time scale, the imperative for humanity in particular to be the one to make that advancement is just anthro vanity. The history of humanity is such a relatively brief thing on the cosmic scale you are talking about, and yet in our brief time we have screwed things up massively for ourselves. But not necessarily for future species and human-like life. Its ok if we don't make it guys, there was species before us, and there will be some after us. The universe is vast. We are probably not even that special, but we can do our best and enjoy life and try to minimize the suffering that will certainly happen from our mistakes... to want to "win" anything beyond that will just cause more suffering. Its ok to admit we messed up, we couldn't know at the time that a global capitalism predicated on an unlimited nature would not end up great, the timeline of scientific discovery was not in out favor there. On all accounts we are most likely too late, its not anyone in particulars fault, its ok. Time is very vast, that can scare you or humble you.

screenbreakout 5y ago

I agree with the main argument, I question the means to get a higher standard of living. ATM it seems like rather than sustaining people we're sustaining their management by and for corporations... it seems like multiple layers and huge inefficiencies to get that QOL you speak of... I mean after all isn't leisure the mother of philosophy ? We treat time as something we don't have enough of...(not surprising as routines tend to contract the perception of time ) We treat humans as disposable, when they have more knowledge, experiences, social contacts the older they get... We revere money more than empathy (moreso in Western Europe, some developed countries or among those "who have") I'd suggest it's all a play by the politicians to remain in power, rather than let people decide (if they weren't working so much to sustain real-estate, rental, health care) We need to replace them by choosing them at random... I believe the term is Stochocracy