4 ms·

This article commits so many logical errors, it becomes hard to unpack. But here are a few that struck me: 1. Attribution of the slower growth in energy usage

This article commits so many logical errors, it becomes hard to unpack. But here are a few that struck me: 1. Attribution of the slower growth in energy usage to a environmental backlash by showing a correlation but no evidence of causation 2. > Indeed, as is now becoming clear in the context of climate change, it is only through the continued development of our technological powers that we can hope to arrest and reverse the immense damage we have caused. Or, you know, stop continuing to cause damage 3. Somehow, this article seems to ignore “risk-adverse” policies that have great harm to the environment, like not re-regulating fishing and grazing rights I mean, there’s a kernel of something here. We need to be learning what technologies enable us to protect ourselves and the environment, and we’re being too slow to do that. But just building a bunch of nuclear power plants isn’t it - that just doubles down on our expectations of endless growth and increases the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. Instead we could be investigating geothermal or even thorium reactors. Or better yet, figuring out how to end our reliance on a system that requires constant economic growth.

goatlover 4y ago
> Or, you know, stop continuing to cause damage And how do you accomplish that economically? What technological progress helps stop continuing damage? What sort of policies to stop the damage are politically viable? There's 8 billion people who need to work, eat, move about, etc. > But just building a bunch of nuclear power plants isn’t it I would have been better than relying on coal plants, and would have helped electrify economies faster. > Or better yet, figuring out how to end our reliance on a system that requires constant economic growth. The world's population is still growing, and the developing world is still developing. How do you propose handling those two issues, while funding cleaner technologies, and finding an alternative economic system? Why can't growth be sustainable with the right technologies? The sun emits vast amounts of energy. There's tons of resources in the solar system. Human civilization could exist for a very long time. We've hardly achieved everything achievable.
- teucris 4y ago
  > Why can't growth be sustainable Because resources are finite. Sure, we haven’t tapped all the energy the sun shines on earth. But if we did, we would be doing the equivalent of painting the earth black, absorbing all possible light and making everything a scorched wasteland. Space travel enables a form of sustainable growth, but if you want to stick around here, the growth needs to stop eventually. I, and many people, believe we’re bumping up against the upper limit of humans the earth can support.
  - samus 4y ago
    Fortunately, it seems that people are rather uninterested in endlessly proliferating. Economic prosperity and the availability of birth control have mostly eliminated the Malthusian spectre. Human population might bump the 10 billion though, but it will reverse. We will have to deal with another serious problem though: how to support and care for the rising percentage of elderly people who can't work as much as they used to.
    - samus 4y ago
      Replying because I forgot two rather important point: * child mortality is lower nowadays, therefore there is usually a temporary population boom in industrializing societies. This is because * in preindustrialized societies, people are aware that their children are their primary means of economic support in old age. Pension schemes have eliminated this incentive in industrialized countries, but a collapse of such schemes will force people to reconsider this point. People might consider to re-prioritize children over other life goals.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Population (whether in physical bodies or as bits after mind upload) growth is polynomial bounded by conservation of energy and speed of light. Real commodity growth is bounded the same way. Economic growth without commodity growth leads to everyone having financial means to monopolise everything which is logically incoherent. Real activity on earth has much stricter limits. Humanity could expand into space, but growth on earth can't exceed various limits of commodities and ability to reject waste heat. The growth is always good mindset is the same logic that would have you see a starving man fed being good and then concluding that shoving a firehose of glucose syrup down every person's throat must be better. Growth is bounded. Resource use is bounded. Consumption levels in the worst polluting countries are past optimal for quality of life. The solution is to improve efficiency and reign in waste whilst uplifting those who don't yet have enough.
boxed 4y ago
> Or, you know, stop continuing to cause damage Note that the article said "and reverse" the damage. You even quoted it! If you get a patient with a bullet wound, the first step is indeed to stop the guy next to him from shooting him again and again. 100% agree. But after you've done that it's time to stop the bleeding, dig out the bullet(s), stop infection, etc. Cutting CO2 emissions is "stopping shooting the patient". Super important and the firs step to be sure! But not nearly enough. Not even by a long shot (pun intended).
hoseja 4y ago
"Stopping to cause damage" has the same failure mode as "trying socialism". You get eaten alive by non-idealists. Outcompeted (by those who play by the rules) and subverted (by the most who don't) at every turn, no matter how theoretically lofty your purpose is.

goatlover 4y ago

> Or, you know, stop continuing to cause damage And how do you accomplish that economically? What technological progress helps stop continuing damage? What sort of policies to stop the damage are politically viable? There's 8 billion people who need to work, eat, move about, etc. > But just building a bunch of nuclear power plants isn’t it I would have been better than relying on coal plants, and would have helped electrify economies faster. > Or better yet, figuring out how to end our reliance on a system that requires constant economic growth. The world's population is still growing, and the developing world is still developing. How do you propose handling those two issues, while funding cleaner technologies, and finding an alternative economic system? Why can't growth be sustainable with the right technologies? The sun emits vast amounts of energy. There's tons of resources in the solar system. Human civilization could exist for a very long time. We've hardly achieved everything achievable.

teucris 4y ago
> Why can't growth be sustainable Because resources are finite. Sure, we haven’t tapped all the energy the sun shines on earth. But if we did, we would be doing the equivalent of painting the earth black, absorbing all possible light and making everything a scorched wasteland. Space travel enables a form of sustainable growth, but if you want to stick around here, the growth needs to stop eventually. I, and many people, believe we’re bumping up against the upper limit of humans the earth can support.
- samus 4y ago
  Fortunately, it seems that people are rather uninterested in endlessly proliferating. Economic prosperity and the availability of birth control have mostly eliminated the Malthusian spectre. Human population might bump the 10 billion though, but it will reverse. We will have to deal with another serious problem though: how to support and care for the rising percentage of elderly people who can't work as much as they used to.
  - samus 4y ago
    Replying because I forgot two rather important point: * child mortality is lower nowadays, therefore there is usually a temporary population boom in industrializing societies. This is because * in preindustrialized societies, people are aware that their children are their primary means of economic support in old age. Pension schemes have eliminated this incentive in industrialized countries, but a collapse of such schemes will force people to reconsider this point. People might consider to re-prioritize children over other life goals.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Population (whether in physical bodies or as bits after mind upload) growth is polynomial bounded by conservation of energy and speed of light. Real commodity growth is bounded the same way. Economic growth without commodity growth leads to everyone having financial means to monopolise everything which is logically incoherent. Real activity on earth has much stricter limits. Humanity could expand into space, but growth on earth can't exceed various limits of commodities and ability to reject waste heat. The growth is always good mindset is the same logic that would have you see a starving man fed being good and then concluding that shoving a firehose of glucose syrup down every person's throat must be better. Growth is bounded. Resource use is bounded. Consumption levels in the worst polluting countries are past optimal for quality of life. The solution is to improve efficiency and reign in waste whilst uplifting those who don't yet have enough.

boxed 4y ago

> Or, you know, stop continuing to cause damage Note that the article said "and reverse" the damage. You even quoted it! If you get a patient with a bullet wound, the first step is indeed to stop the guy next to him from shooting him again and again. 100% agree. But after you've done that it's time to stop the bleeding, dig out the bullet(s), stop infection, etc. Cutting CO2 emissions is "stopping shooting the patient". Super important and the firs step to be sure! But not nearly enough. Not even by a long shot (pun intended).

hoseja 4y ago

"Stopping to cause damage" has the same failure mode as "trying socialism". You get eaten alive by non-idealists. Outcompeted (by those who play by the rules) and subverted (by the most who don't) at every turn, no matter how theoretically lofty your purpose is.