5 ms·

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 e

by 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
        > The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population This is why your detractors are calling you an eco-fascist. People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. That you can even fathom such a sentance is itself suggestive of deficiency. If you want to change your life, please do. Attempting to force your preferences on others is unwise. > especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life You assume you know what makes my life good. What makes my life good is not the same thing that makes the lives of others good. The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
        empyrrhicist 3y ago
        How dare you. You don't know me, and you have not interacted with me sufficiently to possibly justify such inflammatory accusations. > People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. I'm not. Implying I want to manage people like cows is clear bad-faith nonsense. The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces (like education, providing people access to family planning if they want it, and general quality of life) - with that said its stupid to pretend that we have the technology to sustain our current population levels with even the current distribution of lifestyles, let alone the opportunities we should be attempting to provide to all. One might call that lack of understanding "deficient". I believe in the agency of individual people - I am against coercive reproductive policies. I understand the problematic history of movements associated with population anxiety. None of that justifies your absurd accusations. > You assume you know what makes my life good I'm not the one making assumptions here. What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? Would they be "eco-fascists" for wanting the industrial world to get its shit together? > The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not. Again, how dare you. Your condescending inflexibility is truly unreal. To summarize - you think any discussion of human population equates to eco-fascism, regardless of context, motivation, or the ethical and scientific basis on which it is being discussed. Is all of macroeconomics fascist because it talks about the behavior of people in groups rather than recognizing all of our unique individuality? Is anatomy fascist because it studies our literal, physical, animal bodies? Is all regulation fascist because it constrains our individual freedom in favor of collective good? Even workplace safety regulations? Even pure food and drink regulations? Even regulations against environmental damage that affects future generations? If there's no room to talk about collective things at all, then your ideological bubble is small enough to suffocate you (or in this case, everyone).
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The earth can EASILY handle many billions of people. We are just absurdly inefficient with our resource utilization and distribution.
  - rcme 3y ago
    I would love to see some analysis about this. Especially the easily part.
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> Even green energy just is not profitable even though it's increasingly affordable. Green energy has been profitable for years and investment is massively outpacing even the most positive projection of a decade ago. > There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology There is actually a lot of reason to believe we can. People were basically having the same attitude regarding food production at the beginning of the 20th century just before the Green revolution happened. The impact of innovation has been systematically underestimated by environmentalists and climate specialist for the past thrity years. For example, the part of the IPCC scenarios dealing with it is very poor (admittedly it's also old and couldn't really anticipate investement would grow so much). I think most people face the climate issue from a practical and moral standpoint which is fundamentaly wrong. Sadly the level of applied scientific knowledge of the general population is going down the drain so fast, it's in no way surprising.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > The impact of innovation has been systematically underestimated by environmentalists and climate specialist ... "innovation" is exactly what put us in this position to begin with. It's a losing battle, whatever comes is accepted as the new default standard of living, we'll always want more
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    What got us there is burning fossil fuel not "innovation", even if you put scare quotes around it. I know it's hipe to pile up on the modern world but I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising to unheard of before numbers, having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases and education and well being steadily rising throughout the world. I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > What got us there is burning fossil fuel not "innovation" Burning fossil fuel IS _the_ thing that brought us here. There is no innovation without fossil fuel, there is no growth without fossil fuel: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-correlation-between-fossil-fuel-CO-2-emissions-Mt-year-and-GDP-billions-of-2005_fig1_265248063 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-correlation-between-... Plastic, transportation, medicine, food, &c. every single thing that allowed us to live like we do today is 100% fossil fuel based. Fossil fuel were a miracle, finding alternative will be extremely long and hard, if not completely impossible > I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age. Nobody is advocating for that, it's not a solution, it's the reality we'll be facing soon, even if you don't want to. The choice is to be realistic and prepare for what's coming VS continuing business as usual > I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising Are you sure about that ? That as many people suffering of hunger _right now_ that there were inhabitants in the whole fucking world in 1800 > having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases All fun an games until bacteria started becoming antibiotic resistant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/ The very thing that allowed us to live like we do now is coming to bite our asses

by jdiff 3y ago

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
      > The truth is that a lot of our existential risks would be easier to manage with smaller global population This is why your detractors are calling you an eco-fascist. People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. That you can even fathom such a sentance is itself suggestive of deficiency. If you want to change your life, please do. Attempting to force your preferences on others is unwise. > especially if we care about that whole global population having access to good quality of life You assume you know what makes my life good. What makes my life good is not the same thing that makes the lives of others good. The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not.
      - empyrrhicist 3y ago
        How dare you. You don't know me, and you have not interacted with me sufficiently to possibly justify such inflammatory accusations. > People are not cows. You have no right to manage us, or our birth rate, or change us to suit you. I'm not. Implying I want to manage people like cows is clear bad-faith nonsense. The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces (like education, providing people access to family planning if they want it, and general quality of life) - with that said its stupid to pretend that we have the technology to sustain our current population levels with even the current distribution of lifestyles, let alone the opportunities we should be attempting to provide to all. One might call that lack of understanding "deficient". I believe in the agency of individual people - I am against coercive reproductive policies. I understand the problematic history of movements associated with population anxiety. None of that justifies your absurd accusations. > You assume you know what makes my life good I'm not the one making assumptions here. What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? Would they be "eco-fascists" for wanting the industrial world to get its shit together? > The best advice I can give you is to travel and spend time with other people who are different from yourself. What you value, others may not. What they value, you may not. Again, how dare you. Your condescending inflexibility is truly unreal. To summarize - you think any discussion of human population equates to eco-fascism, regardless of context, motivation, or the ethical and scientific basis on which it is being discussed. Is all of macroeconomics fascist because it talks about the behavior of people in groups rather than recognizing all of our unique individuality? Is anatomy fascist because it studies our literal, physical, animal bodies? Is all regulation fascist because it constrains our individual freedom in favor of collective good? Even workplace safety regulations? Even pure food and drink regulations? Even regulations against environmental damage that affects future generations? If there's no room to talk about collective things at all, then your ideological bubble is small enough to suffocate you (or in this case, everyone).
mrguyorama 3y ago
The earth can EASILY handle many billions of people. We are just absurdly inefficient with our resource utilization and distribution.
- rcme 3y ago
  I would love to see some analysis about this. Especially the easily part.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago

> Even green energy just is not profitable even though it's increasingly affordable. Green energy has been profitable for years and investment is massively outpacing even the most positive projection of a decade ago. > There's no reason to believe we can successfully run away from all the problem's technology's caused with more technology There is actually a lot of reason to believe we can. People were basically having the same attitude regarding food production at the beginning of the 20th century just before the Green revolution happened. The impact of innovation has been systematically underestimated by environmentalists and climate specialist for the past thrity years. For example, the part of the IPCC scenarios dealing with it is very poor (admittedly it's also old and couldn't really anticipate investement would grow so much). I think most people face the climate issue from a practical and moral standpoint which is fundamentaly wrong. Sadly the level of applied scientific knowledge of the general population is going down the drain so fast, it's in no way surprising.

lm28469 3y ago
> The impact of innovation has been systematically underestimated by environmentalists and climate specialist ... "innovation" is exactly what put us in this position to begin with. It's a losing battle, whatever comes is accepted as the new default standard of living, we'll always want more
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  What got us there is burning fossil fuel not "innovation", even if you put scare quotes around it. I know it's hipe to pile up on the modern world but I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising to unheard of before numbers, having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases and education and well being steadily rising throughout the world. I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > What got us there is burning fossil fuel not "innovation" Burning fossil fuel IS _the_ thing that brought us here. There is no innovation without fossil fuel, there is no growth without fossil fuel: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-correlation-between-fossil-fuel-CO-2-emissions-Mt-year-and-GDP-billions-of-2005_fig1_265248063 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-correlation-between-... Plastic, transportation, medicine, food, &c. every single thing that allowed us to live like we do today is 100% fossil fuel based. Fossil fuel were a miracle, finding alternative will be extremely long and hard, if not completely impossible > I don't understand how so many people got convinced that the solution is wallowing in sorrow and selfpity and advocating for a return to the dark age. Nobody is advocating for that, it's not a solution, it's the reality we'll be facing soon, even if you don't want to. The choice is to be realistic and prepare for what's coming VS continuing business as usual > I quite enjoy hunger being a solvable issue despite the population rising Are you sure about that ? That as many people suffering of hunger _right now_ that there were inhabitants in the whole fucking world in 1800 > having eridacated or significantly reduced the impact of most of the nastiest diseases All fun an games until bacteria started becoming antibiotic resistant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/ The very thing that allowed us to live like we do now is coming to bite our asses