5 ms·

Exactly. The author is living in a middle/upper class suburbian bubble. Bigger and bigger houses that consume more and more resources is a problem, not a sign o

Exactly. The author is living in a middle/upper class suburbian bubble. Bigger and bigger houses that consume more and more resources is a problem, not a sign of progress. It is a glaring sign of the consumerism and resource depletion that is fueling the crisis we're in. There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.

narcraft 4y ago
If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Air conditioning wasn't really a need in most places historically. Vernacular architecture relied heavily on passive solar design as the default. This uses less energy and also provides superior human comfort.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Coming from Europe, where air conditioning is not really a thing (outside of places of business), yes, you are probably right. It is not a need. But neither is clothing in most parts of the world, or houses larger than a bed, or food that's not oatmeal and the random scavenged fruit. Creature comforts matter. I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted. Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    It's true, but our life expectancy when air conditioning wasn't used was also a lot lower, and life was very difficult outside a small band of areas with good climates (usually cold climates because until the invention of air conditioning, it was much easier for humans to heat spaces than cool and dehumidify them.) And many people in very humid parts of the world had their lives immensely improved thanks to the aircon. Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, credits [1] the aircon as a core reason for development to even exist in the tropics. American homes are built cheaply (and needlessly sprawly but that's another story) without any heed to ventilation because the US government has put every policy in place possible to make sure energy prices remain low which has removed any market incentive to decrease energy usage, partially because fossil fuel companies spend lots of money lobbying the government. But strategic use of AC in a properly ventilated home is absolutely life-changing. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew-air-conditioning https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew...
- eCa 4y ago
  > "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. > If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease. If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    > They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation. > If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue. ... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system. I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.
  - curtainsforus 4y ago
    Build nuclear reactors.
- salt-thrower 4y ago
  > If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? Yes. In a world with zero negative externalities for massive resource consumption, then by all means, give everyone a mansion and a yacht. > What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease. In our current industrialized, consumerist, global economy? Far less than 8 billion. You're painting me as a rabid anti-human eco-fascist though, so let me assure you I'm none of those things. I want humanity to succeed and I want all people to be happy and successful. But the current rate of resource extraction and ecological disturbance that we're directly responsible for will drive our species into a brick wall very soon. Along with millions of other species. We will come to a point where we simply cannot extract the energy we need to feed everyone, and where the biosphere has been so damaged that the necessary agriculture yields just won't be there. And also the other things, like the tropics becoming uninhabitable, ocean acidification killing marine life that the food chain depends on, etc. I'm not anti-human, I'm very much a humanist, and pro-nature. Humans are part of nature. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of limiting our consumption to sustainable levels when given the opportunity to overshoot. Or at least our current civilization does (past ones have done better, but they also didn't have to try to resist the temptation of internal combustion engines like we do now). I've lost hope for any political solutions given how lackluster all efforts have been thus far, so we don't really need to sit here and debate solutions, because no one's at the wheel and the brick wall is getting very close. Enjoy the surplus of energy while we can still extract it. TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    Before climate change was a thing, Malthus was making the same claims about society hitting a brick wall in the late 18th century. You then had scientists in the 19th century predicting the downfall of society because we would run out of places to store horse manure as more people could afford a horse. In the 20th century intellectuals predicted that the world would run out of food. When that didn’t work, scientists predicted the world would end in nuclear war, with rediculous props like the clock counting down to midnight. That didn’t happen, and there had to be a new boogeyman. Even if we could push a button and solve climate change, I’m sure there would always be a reason why we need to stop having babies, turn back time, and live a subsistence lifestyle (Which is also incredibly racist, since it’s usually directed at people in developing economies, as their standard of living increases). And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
tjmc 4y ago
My house is about that size with air conditioning and we consume less than half the solar energy we produce with a 6.6kW system on the roof - a pretty typical size for Australia. I'm lucky to live in one of the sunnier places in the world, but I don't agree that it's not possible.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
> There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living. Why not? Do you think it's impossible for energy to become 'to cheap to meter'?
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  They are also missing the fact that new, large homes are much more efficient. My 3600 sq/ft new construction consumes less energy to heat and cool than the 900 sq/ft 1960s ranch I used to live in, due to more advanced construction techniques, HVAC technology improvements, and better materials science. The same applies to cars. Take something like a Rivian and it’s easily more efficient than a Prius or a subcompact car, while being larger, faster, more performant, and more comfortable. Bigger and more comfortable does not necessarily mean worse for the planet.
- andrepd 4y ago
  We're not remotely close to being there yet, and there isn't even a clear path. So we should not act like a miraculous technological invention is gonna fall from the sky and save us.
  - shepherdjerred 4y ago
    Sure, I agree that we're nowhere close. The parent comment said that no amount of renewable energy would make larger houses sustainable. That makes me think he believes that the real issue is about land use, building materials for larger houses, or some other point aside from energy. I should've been more direct rather than focusing on the energy point, but I suppose I was hoping the commenter would reply about why energy isn't the problem.
piokoch 4y ago
"There is no amount of renewable energy" - very true, but that only means that renewables are the wrong solution, if they are not able to provide progress and sustainability. If only we had a magic technology that from a small amount of matter can produce a lot of energy! But wait, we have that, for good 60 years, it is called nuclear energy power plant and works great, but, for some reason some people don't like it.

narcraft 4y ago

If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Air conditioning wasn't really a need in most places historically. Vernacular architecture relied heavily on passive solar design as the default. This uses less energy and also provides superior human comfort.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Coming from Europe, where air conditioning is not really a thing (outside of places of business), yes, you are probably right. It is not a need. But neither is clothing in most parts of the world, or houses larger than a bed, or food that's not oatmeal and the random scavenged fruit. Creature comforts matter. I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted. Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  It's true, but our life expectancy when air conditioning wasn't used was also a lot lower, and life was very difficult outside a small band of areas with good climates (usually cold climates because until the invention of air conditioning, it was much easier for humans to heat spaces than cool and dehumidify them.) And many people in very humid parts of the world had their lives immensely improved thanks to the aircon. Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, credits [1] the aircon as a core reason for development to even exist in the tropics. American homes are built cheaply (and needlessly sprawly but that's another story) without any heed to ventilation because the US government has put every policy in place possible to make sure energy prices remain low which has removed any market incentive to decrease energy usage, partially because fossil fuel companies spend lots of money lobbying the government. But strategic use of AC in a properly ventilated home is absolutely life-changing. [1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew-air-conditioning https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew...
eCa 4y ago
> "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. > If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease. If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  > They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation. > If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue. ... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system. I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.
- curtainsforus 4y ago
  Build nuclear reactors.
salt-thrower 4y ago
> If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? Yes. In a world with zero negative externalities for massive resource consumption, then by all means, give everyone a mansion and a yacht. > What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease. In our current industrialized, consumerist, global economy? Far less than 8 billion. You're painting me as a rabid anti-human eco-fascist though, so let me assure you I'm none of those things. I want humanity to succeed and I want all people to be happy and successful. But the current rate of resource extraction and ecological disturbance that we're directly responsible for will drive our species into a brick wall very soon. Along with millions of other species. We will come to a point where we simply cannot extract the energy we need to feed everyone, and where the biosphere has been so damaged that the necessary agriculture yields just won't be there. And also the other things, like the tropics becoming uninhabitable, ocean acidification killing marine life that the food chain depends on, etc. I'm not anti-human, I'm very much a humanist, and pro-nature. Humans are part of nature. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of limiting our consumption to sustainable levels when given the opportunity to overshoot. Or at least our current civilization does (past ones have done better, but they also didn't have to try to resist the temptation of internal combustion engines like we do now). I've lost hope for any political solutions given how lackluster all efforts have been thus far, so we don't really need to sit here and debate solutions, because no one's at the wheel and the brick wall is getting very close. Enjoy the surplus of energy while we can still extract it. TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  Before climate change was a thing, Malthus was making the same claims about society hitting a brick wall in the late 18th century. You then had scientists in the 19th century predicting the downfall of society because we would run out of places to store horse manure as more people could afford a horse. In the 20th century intellectuals predicted that the world would run out of food. When that didn’t work, scientists predicted the world would end in nuclear war, with rediculous props like the clock counting down to midnight. That didn’t happen, and there had to be a new boogeyman. Even if we could push a button and solve climate change, I’m sure there would always be a reason why we need to stop having babies, turn back time, and live a subsistence lifestyle (Which is also incredibly racist, since it’s usually directed at people in developing economies, as their standard of living increases). And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.

tjmc 4y ago

My house is about that size with air conditioning and we consume less than half the solar energy we produce with a 6.6kW system on the roof - a pretty typical size for Australia. I'm lucky to live in one of the sunnier places in the world, but I don't agree that it's not possible.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

> There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living. Why not? Do you think it's impossible for energy to become 'to cheap to meter'?

oceanplexian 4y ago
They are also missing the fact that new, large homes are much more efficient. My 3600 sq/ft new construction consumes less energy to heat and cool than the 900 sq/ft 1960s ranch I used to live in, due to more advanced construction techniques, HVAC technology improvements, and better materials science. The same applies to cars. Take something like a Rivian and it’s easily more efficient than a Prius or a subcompact car, while being larger, faster, more performant, and more comfortable. Bigger and more comfortable does not necessarily mean worse for the planet.
andrepd 4y ago
We're not remotely close to being there yet, and there isn't even a clear path. So we should not act like a miraculous technological invention is gonna fall from the sky and save us.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Sure, I agree that we're nowhere close. The parent comment said that no amount of renewable energy would make larger houses sustainable. That makes me think he believes that the real issue is about land use, building materials for larger houses, or some other point aside from energy. I should've been more direct rather than focusing on the energy point, but I suppose I was hoping the commenter would reply about why energy isn't the problem.

piokoch 4y ago

"There is no amount of renewable energy" - very true, but that only means that renewables are the wrong solution, if they are not able to provide progress and sustainability. If only we had a magic technology that from a small amount of matter can produce a lot of energy! But wait, we have that, for good 60 years, it is called nuclear energy power plant and works great, but, for some reason some people don't like it.