5 ms·

You’re free to give up modern conveniences. You’re even free to stop living if you truly feel there are too many people. Or we can keep living, keep enjoying ou

by rcme 3y ago

You’re free to give up modern conveniences. You’re even free to stop living if you truly feel there are too many people. Or we can keep living, keep enjoying our advancements, and find a way to make it work in a way that keeps the climate stable. Like I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t leave my immediate geographic area. I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t have kids. I would rather have kids with the potential that they inherit a destroyed Earth. At least in this case there is hope they inherit something other than a peasant’s lifestyle.

empyrrhicist 3y ago
> Or we can keep living, keep enjoying our advancements, and find a way to make it work in a way that keeps the climate stable. Press X to doubt. The level of technological hubris in this statement is astonishing - we don't know that we'll be able to do this, and we can estimate that the cost of mitigation will be higher than prevention. Very few are advocating living like acetic monks, but we absolutely need to work on including externalities into our pricing system.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  It's exhausting how people think tech is magic, that you can just "innovate" away any inconvenient reality.
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    I think part of it is the truly staggering disconnect most people have from the natural world. Start learning about it in earnest and you will see the slow rolling apocalypse everywhere.
jdiff 3y ago
There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology, specifically tech that doesn't even exist yet and that, more importantly, is not profitable. Even green energy just is not profitable even though it's increasingly affordable. In a weakly regulated capitalist society, that's a death sentence for it. Nobody's saying abandon the cities and go back to the dark ages. But we need to be much more judicious in our production and use of technology.
- rcme 3y ago
  > There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology, specifically tech that doesn't even exist yet and that, more importantly, is not profitable. I agree with this statement. But, absent technological breakthroughs, how many humans can Earth sustainably maintain? Maybe a few hundred million? We're talking about an order of magnitude decrease in population size. Are you OK to say goodbye to 9 out of every 10 people you know? Are you OK to be one of those 9 of 10 that need to die?
  - empyrrhicist 3y ago
    I don't see anyone except for you advocating for that kind of neo-malthusianism. OP said we should eat less meat, travel less, and have fewer kids. Family planning isn't the same thing as advocating for people to die.
    - vorpalhex 3y ago
      We are already under the sustainment birth rate.
      - empyrrhicist 3y ago
        Who is "we"? 1. While global population growth is slowing, population is still growing. 2. There are many real problems with population decline, but that's not an excuse to just throw your hands up and assume we need endless growth. Also, do you mean replacement rate? Sustainment birth rate is not a term in common usage. For the record, population growth is not my highest concern, especially since it decreases with improved quality of life anyway. I simply have no patience for lazily dismissing discussion of population growth as "eco-fascism" or whatever. The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population, especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life (which we should).
        vorpalhex 3y ago
lm28469 3y ago
You should read the Bible or Coran if you like magic stories like these, you might find new friends

by rcme 3y ago

empyrrhicist 3y ago

> Or we can keep living, keep enjoying our advancements, and find a way to make it work in a way that keeps the climate stable. Press X to doubt. The level of technological hubris in this statement is astonishing - we don't know that we'll be able to do this, and we can estimate that the cost of mitigation will be higher than prevention. Very few are advocating living like acetic monks, but we absolutely need to work on including externalities into our pricing system.

mrguyorama 3y ago
It's exhausting how people think tech is magic, that you can just "innovate" away any inconvenient reality.
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  I think part of it is the truly staggering disconnect most people have from the natural world. Start learning about it in earnest and you will see the slow rolling apocalypse everywhere.

jdiff 3y ago

There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology, specifically tech that doesn't even exist yet and that, more importantly, is not profitable. Even green energy just is not profitable even though it's increasingly affordable. In a weakly regulated capitalist society, that's a death sentence for it. Nobody's saying abandon the cities and go back to the dark ages. But we need to be much more judicious in our production and use of technology.

rcme 3y ago
> There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology, specifically tech that doesn't even exist yet and that, more importantly, is not profitable. I agree with this statement. But, absent technological breakthroughs, how many humans can Earth sustainably maintain? Maybe a few hundred million? We're talking about an order of magnitude decrease in population size. Are you OK to say goodbye to 9 out of every 10 people you know? Are you OK to be one of those 9 of 10 that need to die?
- empyrrhicist 3y ago
  I don't see anyone except for you advocating for that kind of neo-malthusianism. OP said we should eat less meat, travel less, and have fewer kids. Family planning isn't the same thing as advocating for people to die.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    We are already under the sustainment birth rate.
    - empyrrhicist 3y ago
      Who is "we"? 1. While global population growth is slowing, population is still growing. 2. There are many real problems with population decline, but that's not an excuse to just throw your hands up and assume we need endless growth. Also, do you mean replacement rate? Sustainment birth rate is not a term in common usage. For the record, population growth is not my highest concern, especially since it decreases with improved quality of life anyway. I simply have no patience for lazily dismissing discussion of population growth as "eco-fascism" or whatever. The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population, especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life (which we should).
      - vorpalhex 3y ago

lm28469 3y ago

You should read the Bible or Coran if you like magic stories like these, you might find new friends