4 ms·

True… but the world keeps moving regardless. The growing demand doesn’t stop once the permit is issued, so if we can’t build these fast enough to keep up, other

True… but the world keeps moving regardless. The growing demand doesn’t stop once the permit is issued, so if we can’t build these fast enough to keep up, other potentially more polluting forms of energy will fill the void.

aliqot 4y ago
Demand does not incur a debt to indulge. Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Ask yourself if those things are possible in your life and whether that means perfect should be the enemy of good when bringing in a responsible solution demands responsible care. Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. From the outside looking in, valuing current demand over the lives of our children is what got us in this mess.
- hansel_der 4y ago
  > Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. not to put too fine a point on it, but 'need for immediate satisfaction' is just how it works imho. not really sure why you are beeing downvoted apart from 'less' always beeing a tough sale.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Yes, people should consume less oil (but big corporations don't). Yes, people should use less power (but big corporations just count power as a cost of doing business). Yes, people should make less people (but big corporations need manpower). > Ask yourself if those things are possible in your life and whether that means perfect should be the enemy of good when bringing in a responsible solution demands responsible care. Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. I have no intention of creating progeny in this fucked up world. Moreover, nuclear power is far safer, per watt produced, than coal or oil. > From the outside looking in, valuing current demand over the lives of our children is what got us in this mess. It's not individual people who've got us in this mess. Or rather, it is... individual people working for individual corporations who don't consider individual people anything other than feedstock for corporation profits.
  - codegrappler 4y ago
    I tend to have a more optimistic view of life and I have 3 kids. I want to support a world that makes things better for them. I’ve always found the “make less people” claim overly patronizing. It’s fine if you don’t want kids, but the kids today will be running the nursing homes, fixing the infrastructure and running the country when we’re retired. I want to help raise this next generation with good moral values and work ethics. I should be able to make that choice.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      I agree with you, even though I’m not having children. My partner and I just need to figure out who can support us when we’re old… (e.g. help us steer our finances in case we can’t ourselves)
      - samstave 4y ago
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I think the idea isn't for everyone to stop having kids, but to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops. There's nothing inherent about society that requires more people than the current workforce to run things in 20+ years, though admittedly, generations are not of equal size (booms and busts in the birth rate over time) and there are often demographic issues as particular generations age out of the workforce. I too support people's desire and right to make choices about reproduction, but at some point it just becomes irresponsibly selfish for a couple to have more than some replacement-level N number of kids. Not just for the planet, but at a smaller level, too, when considering a family's financial resources, etc. I wish more would-be parents would take this sort of thing into account before choosing (or unintentionally not-actually-choosing) to have a(nother) kid.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops Most of the rich world is already doing this [1]. The change was enforced by rising living standards and costs of living. Not proselytising. [1] https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
- kelnos 4y ago
  > Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Game theory (and several economic theories) suggest that relying on voluntary collective sacrifice is never going to work. People simply will not do it, at least not in numbers large enough to be effective. I do try to consume less, but I'm sure I'm still above average consumption-wise, and I'm not sure what other cuts I could make while still maintaining the lifestyle I like. At the very least, I have decided I won't reproduce, so I guess that's something. Political solutions can force people to do things they wouldn't otherwise voluntarily do, but politicians who make their constituents miserable tend to be replaced with politicians who will... not do that. I think the only feasible solution is the one we are already pursuing: continue consumption growth, but find and build cleaner, renewable ways to fuel that consumption. It's not happening nearly fast enough, though, is hindered by special-interest groups who have an incentive to fight change, and it's unclear if we'll be able to dig ourselves out of the hole we've made for our species' future generations.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    > Game theory (and several economic theories) suggest that relying on voluntary collective sacrifice is never going to work It doesn't necessarily involve sacrifice though. Will your life be worse if you have 2 children rather than 3. Or even none instead of 2. For some people it will, but for many it won't. Will it be worse if your house is insulated and requires less energy to heat/cool? Will it be worse if we replace highways with public transit in cities? No, it'll likely actually better (even if you still need to drive, because they'll be less traffic). It also doesn't need to be voluntary. We could mandate these changes, or strongly incentivise them through tax structures. Many countries have already started doing this in some limited cases. We should certainly try to find cleaner ways to fuel consumption, because we're of course still going to need to consume a lot. But much like the easiest way (and often the only way) to make software faster is to make it do less work (while still achieving an equivalent or close enough to equivalent result), the easiest way to meet our energy needs in a clean way is to reduce our energy needs.
    - lazide 4y ago
      If it doesn’t work, it’s because we’re not trying hard enough/mandating everyone do it? Authoritarianism on the march again.
- themitigating 4y ago
  That doesn't work because most people don't care and don't want to remove comforts.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It doesn't work because the cost of my sacrifice is paid by myself, but the benefits of my sacrifice are diffused to the entire society. On the margin it makes no economic sense for me to sacrifice to benefit everyone else (and microscopically myself.)

aliqot 4y ago

Demand does not incur a debt to indulge. Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Ask yourself if those things are possible in your life and whether that means perfect should be the enemy of good when bringing in a responsible solution demands responsible care. Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. From the outside looking in, valuing current demand over the lives of our children is what got us in this mess.

hansel_der 4y ago
> Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. not to put too fine a point on it, but 'need for immediate satisfaction' is just how it works imho. not really sure why you are beeing downvoted apart from 'less' always beeing a tough sale.
inetknght 4y ago
> Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Yes, people should consume less oil (but big corporations don't). Yes, people should use less power (but big corporations just count power as a cost of doing business). Yes, people should make less people (but big corporations need manpower). > Ask yourself if those things are possible in your life and whether that means perfect should be the enemy of good when bringing in a responsible solution demands responsible care. Your needs for immediate satisfaction do not supersede the longterm welfare of your progeny. I have no intention of creating progeny in this fucked up world. Moreover, nuclear power is far safer, per watt produced, than coal or oil. > From the outside looking in, valuing current demand over the lives of our children is what got us in this mess. It's not individual people who've got us in this mess. Or rather, it is... individual people working for individual corporations who don't consider individual people anything other than feedstock for corporation profits.
- codegrappler 4y ago
  I tend to have a more optimistic view of life and I have 3 kids. I want to support a world that makes things better for them. I’ve always found the “make less people” claim overly patronizing. It’s fine if you don’t want kids, but the kids today will be running the nursing homes, fixing the infrastructure and running the country when we’re retired. I want to help raise this next generation with good moral values and work ethics. I should be able to make that choice.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    I agree with you, even though I’m not having children. My partner and I just need to figure out who can support us when we’re old… (e.g. help us steer our finances in case we can’t ourselves)
    - samstave 4y ago
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think the idea isn't for everyone to stop having kids, but to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops. There's nothing inherent about society that requires more people than the current workforce to run things in 20+ years, though admittedly, generations are not of equal size (booms and busts in the birth rate over time) and there are often demographic issues as particular generations age out of the workforce. I too support people's desire and right to make choices about reproduction, but at some point it just becomes irresponsibly selfish for a couple to have more than some replacement-level N number of kids. Not just for the planet, but at a smaller level, too, when considering a family's financial resources, etc. I wish more would-be parents would take this sort of thing into account before choosing (or unintentionally not-actually-choosing) to have a(nother) kid.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > to reduce reproduction down to something near replacement rate, so population growth slows or stops Most of the rich world is already doing this [1]. The change was enforced by rising living standards and costs of living. Not proselytising. [1] https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm
kelnos 4y ago
> Consume less, make less people, and use less power. Game theory (and several economic theories) suggest that relying on voluntary collective sacrifice is never going to work. People simply will not do it, at least not in numbers large enough to be effective. I do try to consume less, but I'm sure I'm still above average consumption-wise, and I'm not sure what other cuts I could make while still maintaining the lifestyle I like. At the very least, I have decided I won't reproduce, so I guess that's something. Political solutions can force people to do things they wouldn't otherwise voluntarily do, but politicians who make their constituents miserable tend to be replaced with politicians who will... not do that. I think the only feasible solution is the one we are already pursuing: continue consumption growth, but find and build cleaner, renewable ways to fuel that consumption. It's not happening nearly fast enough, though, is hindered by special-interest groups who have an incentive to fight change, and it's unclear if we'll be able to dig ourselves out of the hole we've made for our species' future generations.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  > Game theory (and several economic theories) suggest that relying on voluntary collective sacrifice is never going to work It doesn't necessarily involve sacrifice though. Will your life be worse if you have 2 children rather than 3. Or even none instead of 2. For some people it will, but for many it won't. Will it be worse if your house is insulated and requires less energy to heat/cool? Will it be worse if we replace highways with public transit in cities? No, it'll likely actually better (even if you still need to drive, because they'll be less traffic). It also doesn't need to be voluntary. We could mandate these changes, or strongly incentivise them through tax structures. Many countries have already started doing this in some limited cases. We should certainly try to find cleaner ways to fuel consumption, because we're of course still going to need to consume a lot. But much like the easiest way (and often the only way) to make software faster is to make it do less work (while still achieving an equivalent or close enough to equivalent result), the easiest way to meet our energy needs in a clean way is to reduce our energy needs.
  - lazide 4y ago
    If it doesn’t work, it’s because we’re not trying hard enough/mandating everyone do it? Authoritarianism on the march again.
themitigating 4y ago
That doesn't work because most people don't care and don't want to remove comforts.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It doesn't work because the cost of my sacrifice is paid by myself, but the benefits of my sacrifice are diffused to the entire society. On the margin it makes no economic sense for me to sacrifice to benefit everyone else (and microscopically myself.)