5 ms·
I think the thing that people miscalculate is that resource-depletion-driven collapse happens once. Everything the happens prior to the collapse is largely irre
by dottjt 3y ago
I think the thing that people miscalculate is that resource-depletion-driven collapse happens once. Everything the happens prior to the collapse is largely irrelevant, irrespective of how nice life was prior to the collapse.
Ultimately we live in a world of physical limits. Current society is predicated upon exponential growth, it is literally unsustainable by definition.
- jvanderbot 3y agoThis is not true. A total collapse can happen many times, and there can be innumerable reaource-driven collapses of societies or even civilizations. What is conjectures in this thread is that it hasn't happened yet (debatable) but that doesn't mean it can only happen one more time.
- dottjt 3y agoYou're conflating two separate things. Yes, society can collapse multiple times. Yes, there can be innumerable resource-driven collapses. These are given. What I'm referring to is the literal running out of the necessary resources to progress modern society in the same way that we have up until now. This is also a given. Take oil for example, and think of the vast amounts of plastic we rely on, which we currently have no equivalent alternative. Of course, this is only relevant to modern society. This is not to say that humans cannot exist in a pre-modern society. It just won't be pleasant.
- bumby 3y ago>Current society is predicated upon exponential growth Is it though? There is no law in economics that I’m aware of that bars steady state. Exponential growth seems to be nothing more that a (possibly shortsighted) preference
- dottjt 3y agoCan you name a modern society that doesn't aim to maintain positive economic growth year on year?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoEconomic growth doesn't necessarily mean increased resource consumption, especially when you take into account services. For example, Having more doctors and fewer unemployed people improves your GDP, but doesn't require more food to feed more people
- dottjt 3y agoYour response is resource blind, and is part of the problem why we're in the predicament we're in. Think of the amount of resources that a doctor consumes in the services they provide, from all the medical equipment to the medicines and other devices that they administer to their patients.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoTake a minute to imagine more medical doctors without more resources. It is pretty easy
- bumby 3y agoThere is an important distinction between using resources more efficiently and requiring more resources. My point is that we may not be using resources to efficiently raise quality of life. Just adding more resources to that problem seems to ironically be blind to the process and goal.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI don't think you even need to make an efficiency argument. More doctors can provide more benefit even if you gave them no medical devices and medicine. They can answer questions, diagnose, triage, ect. There is a whole class of knowledge services in the economy that can scale without consuming more resources. Therapists, musicians, architects, educators, home-decoration consultants, ect.
- bumby 3y ago