3 ms·

> Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harmin

> Cheap energy from fossil fuels have done more to lift people around the globe out of crushing poverty than any company you think is above "unbelievably harming" the planet. I would actually argue that cheap energy has been one of the dominant factors in _creating_ poverty in the first place. It seems extremely unlikely that we could sustain the current global population without cheap fossil fuels, and other modern technologies. This created extreme dependency and contingency. The ideology that cheap energy is an unalloyed good, lifting people from poverty, assumes that unfettered growth on human population is always a good thing. Also, who is deciding what poverty is? The north american indigenous people certainly do not seem to view modern life as progress. With 7 billion people on earth, I speculate that the absolute amount of human suffering has never been higher than it is at this moment both in material and spiritual terms. How do we celebrate that there are "only" one billion people living in poverty when three hundred years ago, there weren't even one billion people alive? And we are now living with the potential for suffering and mass death on a scale that would never have been possible without these technologies. All of this discussion also takes a completely anthrocentric perspective. If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning, it's hard to see modern life, facilitated by cheap fossil fuels, as anything less than a catastrophe. So, yeah, I am with the parent commenter.

prottog 4y ago
> If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning Would you have been against cavemen cutting down trees and burning them to stay warm, then? Would you stop cows from eating grass, to alleviate the suffering of plants? Why exist at all, when existence itself consumes resources that some other creature might have used?
Tozen 4y ago
The concept that the Earth is overpopulated, and that "convenient technology" is the cause and the solution is rapid "depopulation", is a very dangerous path. You didn't say that was where you were going, but it appears that's what you are alluding to. There are other answers to the problem of overpopulation and poverty. We have to be careful about the "scarcity mindset". Which can cause a toxic and warped view of the world, that leads to creating even more problems. Technology can very much be an answer, among others. Colonizing Mars because of advancements in space related technologies, can mean plenty of room for growth. Solar, nuclear, and other alternative energy can change the structure and direction of societies. New kinds of birth control, can gradually decrease populations. And the answer isn't always technology. For instance women who go to college and work, are less likely to have children or a relative decrease in children and family size. Being more financially well-off or even rich, doesn't mean an end to human suffering. There is no limit on greed, envy, hate, fear, prejudice, theft, etc... Which can cause conflicts, war, death, and various forms of suffering.

prottog 4y ago

> If we consider that the suffering of animals, and perhaps even plants, has any meaning Would you have been against cavemen cutting down trees and burning them to stay warm, then? Would you stop cows from eating grass, to alleviate the suffering of plants? Why exist at all, when existence itself consumes resources that some other creature might have used?

Tozen 4y ago

The concept that the Earth is overpopulated, and that "convenient technology" is the cause and the solution is rapid "depopulation", is a very dangerous path. You didn't say that was where you were going, but it appears that's what you are alluding to. There are other answers to the problem of overpopulation and poverty. We have to be careful about the "scarcity mindset". Which can cause a toxic and warped view of the world, that leads to creating even more problems. Technology can very much be an answer, among others. Colonizing Mars because of advancements in space related technologies, can mean plenty of room for growth. Solar, nuclear, and other alternative energy can change the structure and direction of societies. New kinds of birth control, can gradually decrease populations. And the answer isn't always technology. For instance women who go to college and work, are less likely to have children or a relative decrease in children and family size. Being more financially well-off or even rich, doesn't mean an end to human suffering. There is no limit on greed, envy, hate, fear, prejudice, theft, etc... Which can cause conflicts, war, death, and various forms of suffering.