3 ms·

I think we'd do well to look at the full implications of what you're saying: 1.) We're in agreement that energy sources need to be positive sum where you're pu

I think we'd do well to look at the full implications of what you're saying: 1.) We're in agreement that energy sources need to be positive sum where you're putting in less energy than you get out. Using my point of "tech isn't the problem" here points to a ton of tech you can buy today that does this (from nukes to solar, wind, etc.), and we need gov't intervention to help fund more R&D, adoption, etc. 2.) We actually get to our carbon goals faster when we grow GDP, especially those of the developing world who can bypass old tech and techniques. Just see how much people vote for expensive climate measures when they're poor. 3.) "Wait until we're sustainable" is easy to say when you don't have to look at your family starving or in some other personal hell because you can't afford things for basic living because some high income Westerners want to tell you to pay more for them while they live in luxury and have never known true hardship. That's the real choice we have to make, and I'm not willing to accept a no-growth world that forces us to put those people through hell. I'd rather have a 100 years of superfund sites to clean up and 1000s of species go extinct than to make billions of people suffer through that.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
> That's the real choice we have to make, and I'm not willing to accept a no-growth world We live in a mostly closed system, except for the solar energy beamed from the sun. So hard choices will have to be made sooner or later. Taking action now should lessen the impact once the easy energy runs out. So you can believe and accept what you like, but the laws of physics aren't negotiable. 8 billion people cannot live like most United Statians do today. Asteroid mining and planetary colonies are not going to scale enough to change that, even if we boil the oceans trying.
- nickpinkston 4y ago
  Let me cover your points: - Closed System: Sure, but the actual numbers are more instructive, and we're barely using any of the energy available to us via nuclear, solar, wind, etc. that exists as viable today, let alone fusion, orbital solar, etc. new tech that might come out. So yes, there are limits, but we're far from them. - Taking Action Now: We both agree that we need to take action, but we disagree on the need to decrease growth as a solution. I think I've shown elsewhere what it's actually more probable that we win from green growth than no growth, both politically and from a resource surplus to be diverted into green tech R&D and deployment. - Laws of Physics aren't negotiable: I agree, that's why I'm making this argument from the position of science we know and tech that exists. You have to admit though that if we're trying to be realistic, trying to stop capitalism / markets / consumption just isn't going to happen, and even if it did the lack of economic surplus would prevent the deployment of green solutions. I think the real question here is one of aesthetics. No growthers just don't like the vibe of people consuming, trashing the environment, etc., and I can relate as a minimalist who hates all of that personally as well. The problem is when this aesthetic turns into policy ideas that feel consistent with that aesthetic, but aren't practical. In the end, the point is moot though, as no growth isn't going to happen (thank god) and we're already developing green and post-carbon tech. I think environmentalists should take the win, they convinced the people that matter this is happening, and now even oil companies begrudging drag their feet into this green future. I'm optimistic.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

> That's the real choice we have to make, and I'm not willing to accept a no-growth world We live in a mostly closed system, except for the solar energy beamed from the sun. So hard choices will have to be made sooner or later. Taking action now should lessen the impact once the easy energy runs out. So you can believe and accept what you like, but the laws of physics aren't negotiable. 8 billion people cannot live like most United Statians do today. Asteroid mining and planetary colonies are not going to scale enough to change that, even if we boil the oceans trying.

nickpinkston 4y ago
Let me cover your points: - Closed System: Sure, but the actual numbers are more instructive, and we're barely using any of the energy available to us via nuclear, solar, wind, etc. that exists as viable today, let alone fusion, orbital solar, etc. new tech that might come out. So yes, there are limits, but we're far from them. - Taking Action Now: We both agree that we need to take action, but we disagree on the need to decrease growth as a solution. I think I've shown elsewhere what it's actually more probable that we win from green growth than no growth, both politically and from a resource surplus to be diverted into green tech R&D and deployment. - Laws of Physics aren't negotiable: I agree, that's why I'm making this argument from the position of science we know and tech that exists. You have to admit though that if we're trying to be realistic, trying to stop capitalism / markets / consumption just isn't going to happen, and even if it did the lack of economic surplus would prevent the deployment of green solutions. I think the real question here is one of aesthetics. No growthers just don't like the vibe of people consuming, trashing the environment, etc., and I can relate as a minimalist who hates all of that personally as well. The problem is when this aesthetic turns into policy ideas that feel consistent with that aesthetic, but aren't practical. In the end, the point is moot though, as no growth isn't going to happen (thank god) and we're already developing green and post-carbon tech. I think environmentalists should take the win, they convinced the people that matter this is happening, and now even oil companies begrudging drag their feet into this green future. I'm optimistic.