3 ms·

> That rate does not scale negatively with energy prices. It scales positively with population, in the West. I wouldn't uses "prices" here as a framing. If you

> That rate does not scale negatively with energy prices. It scales positively with population, in the West. I wouldn't uses "prices" here as a framing. If you plot the graphs of worldwide energy usage and worldwide garbage emissions (let's take greenhouse gases or amount of artificialized soil as examples), you will see that they are correlated. We have grown to this gigantic population solely thanks to our mastery of energy, that's the one factor that enabled all the rest (abundant food, time to go to college instead of farming, developments in medicine to make your life longer, retirements, consumerism etc.). What I'm saying is that, looking at what we've done so far with energy, it's not entirely sure more energy will be good for our prospects of survival. We need to have a collective philosophical revolution first.

slothtrop 4y ago
> If you plot the graphs of worldwide energy usage and worldwide garbage emissions (let's take greenhouse gases or amount of artificialized soil as examples), you will see that they are correlated. You've mentioned this twice, and so it's worth nothing that important factors also correlated in that period of time: the rapid rise of the middle class following the decimation of wealth from the world wars, which led to a population boom. Another factor you're taking for granted: fertility rate drops in economies as they get very strong. Western countries boost immigration for this reason: you need more bodies to increase GDP growth (and by extension, waste), if that's what you want. Lower energy prices alone will not lead to people breeding more. If it did, we'd have more kids than our grandparents/great-grandparents did, just as you alluded that they spent more on food. So on top of the fact that we're projecting GLOBAL STAGNANT POPULATION GROWTH, which means an end to increase in consumption, technological innovation means that consumption produces less waste. You can't account for innovation in energy and nowhere else. > What I'm saying is that, looking at what we've done so far with energy, it's not entirely sure more energy will be good for our prospects of survival. We need to have a collective philosophical revolution first. I know what you were saying, and I'm saying it's wrong.
- felixmeziere 4y ago
  This is super interesting, let's continue the conversation: population increase is a big factor driving energy consumption (and garbage emissions) indeed. Let's assume we have GLOBAL STAGNANT POPULATION GROWTH from today on. So we stay at 7 billion, no problem (this is of course wrong, nicest estimates say we'll stabilise around 9 billion). The 2 questions now are: 1) what allowed us to reach this amount of population? 2) can this amount of population remain stable with the current inputs given to the system or not? My two answers: 1) Energy. Abundant energy is what allowed population to reach such heights (x7 in 200 years). In a nutshell it did so by enabling us to get abundant resources, food, medicine and comfort, the first stages of Maslow basically. It did so at scales that would have defied imagination in previous centuries. 2) There are two possible answers here: - Yes, it is sustainable, meaning we don't deplete earth's resources faster than they renew themselves, situation which will get better with the improvement of technology and will compensate for more and more people getting into the middle class (i.e. more consumers). - No, it is not sustainable, meaning we are depleting earth's resources faster than they renew themselves, and this situation will get worse with more and more people accessing the middle class (or worse: higher classes) and so the population will collapse at some point due to shortages of food/pandemics/wars etc. Data to help answer the questions: - all serious scientific reports (IPCC, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-bound... and others) say that we are currently depleting earth's resources much faster than it can renew them and destabilising many natural systems like climate/life etc to irreversible points - the average american currently emits 16 tons of CO2/year, the average human emits 4 tons/year, we need to get to under 2 tons/year to make sure the climate does not blow up too much => consequence of this: 5 billion people with a lifestyle a bit closer to the one of americans (i.e. a growing middle class) is much worse than 10 billion with the living standard of people in say, south-east asia or Africa => the living standard is much more important as a factor than the amount of people, if we get more energy with the same amount of people, we'll just keep giving more and more comfort to more and more people, trust me that energy won't stay unused on the side nicely. - Similar idea to previous point: there is a direct correlation between living standard and amount of destruction of the environment. The rich destroy the planet incredibly more than normal people, even in developped country (symbolised extremely by Brandson & friends). More and more rich/middle class people = more and more energy consumption. This factor is much more powerful than population growth. - [To be fact checked] I don't remember exactly the numbers but in the past 50 years, optimisations thanks to technology have divided the consumption of machines by 2, while emissions have been multiplied by 4 or 5: so far with what we observe, technology is not a silver bullet to reduce the problem. It is more the cause of the problem by enabling us to do always more and more, with our clumsy, human ways and therefore disrupting nature always more and more. What are your answers?

slothtrop 4y ago

> If you plot the graphs of worldwide energy usage and worldwide garbage emissions (let's take greenhouse gases or amount of artificialized soil as examples), you will see that they are correlated. You've mentioned this twice, and so it's worth nothing that important factors also correlated in that period of time: the rapid rise of the middle class following the decimation of wealth from the world wars, which led to a population boom. Another factor you're taking for granted: fertility rate drops in economies as they get very strong. Western countries boost immigration for this reason: you need more bodies to increase GDP growth (and by extension, waste), if that's what you want. Lower energy prices alone will not lead to people breeding more. If it did, we'd have more kids than our grandparents/great-grandparents did, just as you alluded that they spent more on food. So on top of the fact that we're projecting GLOBAL STAGNANT POPULATION GROWTH, which means an end to increase in consumption, technological innovation means that consumption produces less waste. You can't account for innovation in energy and nowhere else. > What I'm saying is that, looking at what we've done so far with energy, it's not entirely sure more energy will be good for our prospects of survival. We need to have a collective philosophical revolution first. I know what you were saying, and I'm saying it's wrong.

felixmeziere 4y ago
This is super interesting, let's continue the conversation: population increase is a big factor driving energy consumption (and garbage emissions) indeed. Let's assume we have GLOBAL STAGNANT POPULATION GROWTH from today on. So we stay at 7 billion, no problem (this is of course wrong, nicest estimates say we'll stabilise around 9 billion). The 2 questions now are: 1) what allowed us to reach this amount of population? 2) can this amount of population remain stable with the current inputs given to the system or not? My two answers: 1) Energy. Abundant energy is what allowed population to reach such heights (x7 in 200 years). In a nutshell it did so by enabling us to get abundant resources, food, medicine and comfort, the first stages of Maslow basically. It did so at scales that would have defied imagination in previous centuries. 2) There are two possible answers here: - Yes, it is sustainable, meaning we don't deplete earth's resources faster than they renew themselves, situation which will get better with the improvement of technology and will compensate for more and more people getting into the middle class (i.e. more consumers). - No, it is not sustainable, meaning we are depleting earth's resources faster than they renew themselves, and this situation will get worse with more and more people accessing the middle class (or worse: higher classes) and so the population will collapse at some point due to shortages of food/pandemics/wars etc. Data to help answer the questions: - all serious scientific reports (IPCC, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-bound... and others) say that we are currently depleting earth's resources much faster than it can renew them and destabilising many natural systems like climate/life etc to irreversible points - the average american currently emits 16 tons of CO2/year, the average human emits 4 tons/year, we need to get to under 2 tons/year to make sure the climate does not blow up too much => consequence of this: 5 billion people with a lifestyle a bit closer to the one of americans (i.e. a growing middle class) is much worse than 10 billion with the living standard of people in say, south-east asia or Africa => the living standard is much more important as a factor than the amount of people, if we get more energy with the same amount of people, we'll just keep giving more and more comfort to more and more people, trust me that energy won't stay unused on the side nicely. - Similar idea to previous point: there is a direct correlation between living standard and amount of destruction of the environment. The rich destroy the planet incredibly more than normal people, even in developped country (symbolised extremely by Brandson & friends). More and more rich/middle class people = more and more energy consumption. This factor is much more powerful than population growth. - [To be fact checked] I don't remember exactly the numbers but in the past 50 years, optimisations thanks to technology have divided the consumption of machines by 2, while emissions have been multiplied by 4 or 5: so far with what we observe, technology is not a silver bullet to reduce the problem. It is more the cause of the problem by enabling us to do always more and more, with our clumsy, human ways and therefore disrupting nature always more and more. What are your answers?