3 ms·

There is some debate now in Sweden about how much of a good idea is to use nuclear power. The greens are absolutely convinced it's a bad idea. Their arguments a

by dsign 4y ago

There is some debate now in Sweden about how much of a good idea is to use nuclear power. The greens are absolutely convinced it's a bad idea. Their arguments against nuclear make no sense to me. But their arguments pro-renewable make even less sense. Towns in Sweden are opposing wind energy on the (green) basis that it disturbs the local wildlife, and I saw a field of solar power replace a field of wheat the other day, and trust me it looks even worse than a wind turbine. So no matter where one looks, the bottom line seems pretty clear: there are no good compromises that preserve the planet and promote economic development[^1]. Maybe it is time to start talking about the no-compromise solutions? Like colonizing space[^2] and de-industrializing and de-populating Earth? Because if we don't, when global warming gets worse and the majority of people start considering that industrialization is a threat to the environment and their survival, we will just be talking about de-industrialization and forcing everybody to go vegetarian and poor, no choice involved. [^1]: If you think you have all the material wealth you need, cheers! But poverty still affects the quality of life of most people on the planet, and most people would rather have a better life. [^2]: Must people imagine cramped space bases separated from vacuum by a paper-thin wall while working under the whipping of something like Amazon 5.0, but lush, ginormous space habitats with sensible bylaws are also an option.

10u152 4y ago
I’ve always been curious of the whole “wind turbines disturb wildlife” thing. Surely climate change will disturb them much, much more? Also I’m not sure depopulation is exactly a “zero compromise” solution.
nonethewiser 4y ago
I dont believe you harbor any bad intentions but how could de-populating the earth be anything but evil in practice? Where are we starting? And how are we preventing the selected people from having babies?
- dsign 4y ago
  What I mean is that as the (probably justified) climate furor goes up, so will go hopelessness. According to the current civic discourse, it's all our fault (well, it really is) and therefore we are a blight for the planet. People may start thinking that having less babies and less population is a good idea. You don't really need to forbid people to have babies, all you need to do is to stop pushing for people to have babies above the replacement rate. In some developed countries and in some underdeveloped countries with easy access to contraceptives, people are already having babies below the replacement rate and the governments are trying to revert the trend. And this is today; who knows how culture will change if things get really bad. Leaving the babies aside for a minute, the "industries are bad for the environment" is a widely held belief already. Optimistic people believe in clean industries and if we get them in time, all will be good. If they don't, then the pessimistic people will say that there is no such thing as clean industries, and as the threats associated with global warming get more severe, pushing for de-industrialization may give an easy remedy. It could be an extra-economic movement (political movement, even a violent revolution), not something necessarily incentivized by market forces. Regarding cattle (and in minor degree, crops), nobody seems to have a good solution. Don't get me wrong, IMO industries are good for human well-being, and with a bigger, properly-trained population under supportive economic conditions industries will be even more so. But there is only so much of that the planet can take. Therefore, as long as we choose compromise, we are choosing away well-being. If what I said about compromises and choosing away well-being and cow meat makes my point difficult to understand, here is a thought experiment that may help: imagine that in the year 2050 we discover a way of keeping people young forever at the cost of expending 1000 kW[^1] per person in a biomedical simulation... ---- [^1]: kW is a power unit, so that means 1000 kW.h per hour, or 24000 kW.h per day per person.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  De-populating is good if it is done by giving people—especially women—greater agency over their own lives. Across all human societies, improving access to education, employment, finance, and birth control are correlated with a) stronger economies and better standards of living and b) declines in population growth. You don’t have to prevent people from having babies. You just have to let them choose what they want to do with their lives.

by dsign 4y ago

10u152 4y ago

I’ve always been curious of the whole “wind turbines disturb wildlife” thing. Surely climate change will disturb them much, much more? Also I’m not sure depopulation is exactly a “zero compromise” solution.

nonethewiser 4y ago

I dont believe you harbor any bad intentions but how could de-populating the earth be anything but evil in practice? Where are we starting? And how are we preventing the selected people from having babies?

dsign 4y ago
What I mean is that as the (probably justified) climate furor goes up, so will go hopelessness. According to the current civic discourse, it's all our fault (well, it really is) and therefore we are a blight for the planet. People may start thinking that having less babies and less population is a good idea. You don't really need to forbid people to have babies, all you need to do is to stop pushing for people to have babies above the replacement rate. In some developed countries and in some underdeveloped countries with easy access to contraceptives, people are already having babies below the replacement rate and the governments are trying to revert the trend. And this is today; who knows how culture will change if things get really bad. Leaving the babies aside for a minute, the "industries are bad for the environment" is a widely held belief already. Optimistic people believe in clean industries and if we get them in time, all will be good. If they don't, then the pessimistic people will say that there is no such thing as clean industries, and as the threats associated with global warming get more severe, pushing for de-industrialization may give an easy remedy. It could be an extra-economic movement (political movement, even a violent revolution), not something necessarily incentivized by market forces. Regarding cattle (and in minor degree, crops), nobody seems to have a good solution. Don't get me wrong, IMO industries are good for human well-being, and with a bigger, properly-trained population under supportive economic conditions industries will be even more so. But there is only so much of that the planet can take. Therefore, as long as we choose compromise, we are choosing away well-being. If what I said about compromises and choosing away well-being and cow meat makes my point difficult to understand, here is a thought experiment that may help: imagine that in the year 2050 we discover a way of keeping people young forever at the cost of expending 1000 kW[^1] per person in a biomedical simulation... ---- [^1]: kW is a power unit, so that means 1000 kW.h per hour, or 24000 kW.h per day per person.
snowwrestler 4y ago
De-populating is good if it is done by giving people—especially women—greater agency over their own lives. Across all human societies, improving access to education, employment, finance, and birth control are correlated with a) stronger economies and better standards of living and b) declines in population growth. You don’t have to prevent people from having babies. You just have to let them choose what they want to do with their lives.