5 ms·

People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. No major politician is ever going

People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. No major politician is ever going to run on the platform of "I will intentionally make us poorer". Anyone who actually tries that will quickly find themselves out of office. Even in a dictatorship that's a great way to get yourself coup'd. These posts come across as unbelievably naive and out of touch. For example: >Quite a few of us, not most but at least a sizeable portion, are willing to make these concessions. I think this author either has a seriously different idea of what "sizeable portion" means or is vastly overestimating how many people support this kind of policy to begin with and would continue supporting this policy once they actually saw what it affected their standard of living. It's all well and good until people find out that they can no longer have lots of nice things which they previously took for granted. >It means more people growing food on smaller plots. No, that takes MORE energy, not less. If your concern is about too much energy usage then decreasing the efficiency of energy use by reducing economies of scale is insane.

sentirism 4y ago
How this would also work in the real world is that you need to go back to a 1950s living standard to save the planet. Me? My current living standard is essential to saving the planet so it would be a mistake for me to join you.
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  That is not the only option. For example, we could expand nuclear power greatly, akin to France, to make electricity cheaper.
- dTal 4y ago
  I'd love to know how your current living standard is essential to saving the planet.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I believe that was sarcasm. The point is that, in the real world, big shots will continue to jet off to Davos, and expect the rest of us to adopt a 1950s lifestyle. And, given how we saw quarantines and masking play out, I suspect sentirism is right.
defterGoose 4y ago
Factory farming is incredibly petroleum intensive. Subsistence farming is much less impactful if your efficiency metric is "number of tomatoes per ton of CO2 emitted".
marssaxman 4y ago
> People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. When the alternative appears to be the collapse of civilization and the possible extinction of humanity, how can it NOT be an option?
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > how can it not be an option Because there is no central government, no central decisor. It's a game theory context of actors spread all over.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    What is your position, then - simply fatalism? You don't seem to be disagreeing with the author's premises, or his conclusions. Even if the situation does turn out to be hopeless, that point of view does not seem to offer anything useful. Better to try and fail, at least!
    - netsharc 4y ago
      I'm not the above commenter, but I subscribe to the fatalism... even with a deadly disease that could (for a small sub-percent of "could") kill you within 2 weeks, people got into denial as one of the excuses why they shouldn't follow what society wanted them to do.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      "Your solution doesn't work" != "I have a solution that works". I don't have to have a solution that works to be able to point out that your solution doesn't work. Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism. If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - 4y ago
dredmorbius 4y ago
No major politician is ever going to run on the platform of "I will intentionally make us poorer". Is the issue here that the premise is false (that a 1950s standard of living will be necessary), or that the tools for getting there from here are insufficient to the task (liberal democratic polity). In the more general case, if you've got a problem, a necessary destination, and standard set of tools used to solve problems, if the tools don't suit the destination is the problem the tools or the destination? I ask as it seems that often the problem seems to be the tools, but discussion hinges on the destination. This strikes me as odd. I'll note that the article isn't even premised on how we get to a 1950s standard of living, but if that's a viable goal or target. Departing immediately from that question to the viability of getting to it, before considering the target's sufficiency or suitability, seems ... premature.
- candiodari 4y ago
  I think there's even a problem of expectations. What would it accomplish if we did that? Because there wouldn't be a reduction of climate forcing if we did this, it would be a (slower) increase. It wouldn't cool the planet, it would merely slow the increase. Since we definitely want that to happen, we need other options than the options currently discussed. If I look at this I always come back to the same point: humanity will need to take control of earth's climate. And while limiting CO2 (and, more importantly, methane) emissions will be a component of that, it's not going to be the only one or even the most important.

sentirism 4y ago

How this would also work in the real world is that you need to go back to a 1950s living standard to save the planet. Me? My current living standard is essential to saving the planet so it would be a mistake for me to join you.

baggy_trough 4y ago
That is not the only option. For example, we could expand nuclear power greatly, akin to France, to make electricity cheaper.
dTal 4y ago
I'd love to know how your current living standard is essential to saving the planet.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I believe that was sarcasm. The point is that, in the real world, big shots will continue to jet off to Davos, and expect the rest of us to adopt a 1950s lifestyle. And, given how we saw quarantines and masking play out, I suspect sentirism is right.

defterGoose 4y ago

Factory farming is incredibly petroleum intensive. Subsistence farming is much less impactful if your efficiency metric is "number of tomatoes per ton of CO2 emitted".

marssaxman 4y ago

> People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. When the alternative appears to be the collapse of civilization and the possible extinction of humanity, how can it NOT be an option?

mdp2021 4y ago
> how can it not be an option Because there is no central government, no central decisor. It's a game theory context of actors spread all over.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  What is your position, then - simply fatalism? You don't seem to be disagreeing with the author's premises, or his conclusions. Even if the situation does turn out to be hopeless, that point of view does not seem to offer anything useful. Better to try and fail, at least!
  - netsharc 4y ago
    I'm not the above commenter, but I subscribe to the fatalism... even with a deadly disease that could (for a small sub-percent of "could") kill you within 2 weeks, people got into denial as one of the excuses why they shouldn't follow what society wanted them to do.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    "Your solution doesn't work" != "I have a solution that works". I don't have to have a solution that works to be able to point out that your solution doesn't work. Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism. If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 4y ago

dredmorbius 4y ago

No major politician is ever going to run on the platform of "I will intentionally make us poorer". Is the issue here that the premise is false (that a 1950s standard of living will be necessary), or that the tools for getting there from here are insufficient to the task (liberal democratic polity). In the more general case, if you've got a problem, a necessary destination, and standard set of tools used to solve problems, if the tools don't suit the destination is the problem the tools or the destination? I ask as it seems that often the problem seems to be the tools, but discussion hinges on the destination. This strikes me as odd. I'll note that the article isn't even premised on how we get to a 1950s standard of living, but if that's a viable goal or target. Departing immediately from that question to the viability of getting to it, before considering the target's sufficiency or suitability, seems ... premature.

candiodari 4y ago
I think there's even a problem of expectations. What would it accomplish if we did that? Because there wouldn't be a reduction of climate forcing if we did this, it would be a (slower) increase. It wouldn't cool the planet, it would merely slow the increase. Since we definitely want that to happen, we need other options than the options currently discussed. If I look at this I always come back to the same point: humanity will need to take control of earth's climate. And while limiting CO2 (and, more importantly, methane) emissions will be a component of that, it's not going to be the only one or even the most important.