4 ms·

Probably heavy taxation of consumption and lowering the average standard of living across the globe. Too bad it's a pipe dream, people will never vote for it an

by badpun 4y ago

Probably heavy taxation of consumption and lowering the average standard of living across the globe. Too bad it's a pipe dream, people will never vote for it and an dictator that tries to impose it will be overthrown.

bjourne 4y ago
Let's redefine "standard of living" from owning a SUV to feel "safe" to owning a guitar and having time to learn how to play it.
Scarblac 4y ago
Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.
- badpun 4y ago
  I'd be shocked if even one country does it in a meaningful way. It's just so contrary to human nature. I think the only thing that can save us short-term is technology. Inventing and implementing new gizmos is something we're actually good at. Long-term we're probably screwed anyway, because we'll eventually disturb the biological systems on the Earth too much (either via pollution, ocean acidification, killing biodiversity, soil depletion etc.), and they're way too immense and complex for us to fix. People forget that we're part of Earth's ecosystem, but if we disturb it too much we'll be reminded of it either via plagues (we got a taste of it already) and/or famines.
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    Well, it will happen, because the current standard is unsustainable, and that's the definition of the word. The only thing is whether any of it will be in a somewhat controlled, damage limiting fashion, or will it be just one stupid catastrophe after another. I feel new gizmos are generally just more fuel onto the fire of consumerism, and will just speed up the process, not slow it.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  It's not the "standard of living" that is unsustainable. The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. And even Europe is putting a lot of effort into policies that simultaneously improve their standard of living and reduce waste or pollution. Saying that "standard of living" is synonymous with "amount of fossil fuels you burn" is standard climate change denier rhetoric. People with efficient cars and well insulated homes have higher standards of living than those who don't.
  - badpun 4y ago
    > The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. It's not similar though. Americans live in way bigger homes and on way bigger plots of land. Streets are wider. Everything is less cramped in general. Also, US has possibly the best health care quality (note I'm not discussing health care _insurance_) in the world. They can also afford more consumer niceties (iPhones, nice cars, foreign vacations etc.). All that extra stuff and quality requires extra fossil fuels and minerals.
    - Mildlypolite 4y ago
      How comes that you have the "best health care quality" but all the indicators of health care quality like life expectancy is among the worse in the Western world?
      - badpun 4y ago
        Because its's good (and expensive) that not everyone can afford it?
  - Scarblac 4y ago
    It's not only about fossil fuels. It's about all the resources that we use more of than is regenerated each year. I think both the US and Europe use too much.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Mildlypolite 4y ago
"Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ The only pipe dream is to continue breaching the planet boundaries.
- badpun 4y ago
  I mean, of course, it will happen, but not as a voluntary self-limitation, but as hitting against hard limits, especially as they start shriking.
  - Mildlypolite 4y ago
    Of course, voluntary self limitation is unlikely. But severe limitations were imposed during wars on the population by the state, so they are in the realm of possibility (once we acknowledge the severity of the problem, which we are not doing, because of many reasons). We should also add that the expansion of renewables energy create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, therefore there is at least some hope of this limitations being not as severe as w think. It was calculated that, to be sustainable, the lifestyle should go back to the sixties, during which we lived fairly well but without a savage overconsumption as now.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  The idea of planetary boundaries is ridiculous. Are you talking about the collapse of an ecosystem? Multiple ecosystems? That’s still defined. But planetary boundaries is another word for “saving the earth.” No. The earth doesn’t need saving. The diversity of life needs saving. Planetary boundaries is the wrong goal.
  - Mildlypolite 4y ago
    Read the paper please, planet boundaries are scientifically defined.

by badpun 4y ago

bjourne 4y ago

Let's redefine "standard of living" from owning a SUV to feel "safe" to owning a guitar and having time to learn how to play it.

Scarblac 4y ago

Not across the globe. Only in rich countries where the current standard of living is unsustainable.

badpun 4y ago
I'd be shocked if even one country does it in a meaningful way. It's just so contrary to human nature. I think the only thing that can save us short-term is technology. Inventing and implementing new gizmos is something we're actually good at. Long-term we're probably screwed anyway, because we'll eventually disturb the biological systems on the Earth too much (either via pollution, ocean acidification, killing biodiversity, soil depletion etc.), and they're way too immense and complex for us to fix. People forget that we're part of Earth's ecosystem, but if we disturb it too much we'll be reminded of it either via plagues (we got a taste of it already) and/or famines.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  Well, it will happen, because the current standard is unsustainable, and that's the definition of the word. The only thing is whether any of it will be in a somewhat controlled, damage limiting fashion, or will it be just one stupid catastrophe after another. I feel new gizmos are generally just more fuel onto the fire of consumerism, and will just speed up the process, not slow it.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
It's not the "standard of living" that is unsustainable. The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. And even Europe is putting a lot of effort into policies that simultaneously improve their standard of living and reduce waste or pollution. Saying that "standard of living" is synonymous with "amount of fossil fuels you burn" is standard climate change denier rhetoric. People with efficient cars and well insulated homes have higher standards of living than those who don't.
- badpun 4y ago
  > The USA wastes a lot more resources to achieve similar standard of living to Europe. It's not similar though. Americans live in way bigger homes and on way bigger plots of land. Streets are wider. Everything is less cramped in general. Also, US has possibly the best health care quality (note I'm not discussing health care _insurance_) in the world. They can also afford more consumer niceties (iPhones, nice cars, foreign vacations etc.). All that extra stuff and quality requires extra fossil fuels and minerals.
  - Mildlypolite 4y ago
    How comes that you have the "best health care quality" but all the indicators of health care quality like life expectancy is among the worse in the Western world?
    - badpun 4y ago
      Because its's good (and expensive) that not everyone can afford it?
- Scarblac 4y ago
  It's not only about fossil fuels. It's about all the resources that we use more of than is regenerated each year. I think both the US and Europe use too much.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Mildlypolite 4y ago

"Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574335/ The only pipe dream is to continue breaching the planet boundaries.

badpun 4y ago
I mean, of course, it will happen, but not as a voluntary self-limitation, but as hitting against hard limits, especially as they start shriking.
- Mildlypolite 4y ago
  Of course, voluntary self limitation is unlikely. But severe limitations were imposed during wars on the population by the state, so they are in the realm of possibility (once we acknowledge the severity of the problem, which we are not doing, because of many reasons). We should also add that the expansion of renewables energy create more jobs than the fossil fuel sector, therefore there is at least some hope of this limitations being not as severe as w think. It was calculated that, to be sustainable, the lifestyle should go back to the sixties, during which we lived fairly well but without a savage overconsumption as now.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
The idea of planetary boundaries is ridiculous. Are you talking about the collapse of an ecosystem? Multiple ecosystems? That’s still defined. But planetary boundaries is another word for “saving the earth.” No. The earth doesn’t need saving. The diversity of life needs saving. Planetary boundaries is the wrong goal.
- Mildlypolite 4y ago
  Read the paper please, planet boundaries are scientifically defined.