4 ms·

I feel like it’s left out that the overall trajectory of civilization may need correction. What if instead of more efficient 20th century technologies we moved

I feel like it’s left out that the overall trajectory of civilization may need correction. What if instead of more efficient 20th century technologies we moved away from motor vehicles as a transportation class and into more livable, higher density and more nature preserving cities. How come that’s not the first conversation? I do agree with the common sense argument that less impact earlier is better that’s described in the article, but the entire conversation seems to have stalled out on “better version of what we have now” instead of a more radical but much more long-term sustainable vision of society transformed to be in balance with natural life support systems. The conversation around sustainability is always about merely adjusting the system that has wrought profound destruction to the planet — always smart sounding but not particularly wise.

glogla 3y ago
Of course! But why would you think that this is achievable? Look at the enormous amount of hatred even a small change like "your car, your house heating and your stove will use electricity instead of compressed refined dead dinosaurs" got. Look at how many people when told "we need to change things or this planet is going to be uninhabitable in a few decades" stick fingers in their ears and say "nu uh" or actively start claiming this is all made up. I'd love to have more sustainable vision of the future, but since most people would rather see humanity end than give up tiniest comfort or accept any change (even a good one, like people in walkable cities are actually happier than people in suburbs). So we don't exactly have a lot of manoeuvring space.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Well the reason I wrote to post was to inject the point into the conversation as it’s sorely lacking usually. Also, it’s been my experience that people only change when they are in incredible amounts of pain, and I think that that’s true of this debate with climate change, and it’s impacts on earth. As soon as food and water supplies are threatened, and people are having to retreat from coastal areas in the next few decades, the conversation may finally shift to meaningful action. And that’s the reason for my “optimism.” Obviously, for those of us who actually study the issue like yourself know it may be far too late to do anything about it, because by the time these impacts hit, there will be a great deal of downstream consequences, but I do think people will change eventually. If for no other reasons than because they have to, or at least they will then. Just a little sad you can’t avert the inevitable consequences that are so clearly laid out because people hold onto iterating on simple extensions of the existing failed ethos and paradigm, which is why I generally try to inject a transformation instead of iteration comment into these types of posts on online platforms. They are polarizing ideas, but if more of us injected this bias at scale and with great frequency I believe it could gradually change public opinion. And that is how you bring about change — the environmental consciousness is profoundly different than it was in the 50s and 60s, when a visit to the forest camping with the kids or even backpacking often included USFS run burn pit and people scoffed at the clean water and air acts, and it was done with similar educational and outreach so it really can change things — we do have impact as collective individuals in sharing our perspectives and alternative belief systems. So I don’t generally feel the need to provide the answers to how because the purpose of this comment and my many others like it is to anchor an alternative opinion to allow for alternatives to the dominant paradigm not solve the execution issues in providing a visionary societal transformation as that far exceeds what one person can do. But I do believe we should be actively talking about transformation and not iteration of the existing system much more actively.
  - glogla 3y ago
    That is a better response than my sad little post deserved. Thank you.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      That’s just the kindest response ever. Thank you for being you!
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Well, the simple (not to be confused with easy, or pleasant) solution is to stop listening to those people. Sometimes people need to be dragged into the current century kicking and screaming.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Wise words those. I think this is inline with much of the thinking I’ve seen from policymakers I’ve read and talked with.
falcolas 3y ago
> into more livable, higher density Speaking for myself, but you’re describing hell. I’ve lived in high density urban environments, and moved back to Montana just to get away from that misery.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Higher density isn’t intrinsically high density urbanism. That’s a limiting idea. There’s a broad spectrum of density between Montana ruralism and downtown Manhattan, with different thresholds of possibilities at each degree of concentration along the way. Besides Montana is growing at 1 percent a year on average and that will certainly increase as winters become more mild. I believe it was Idaho, Montana and Florida that saw the highest population growth among U.S. states between 2020 and 2022 as well. If it grows 10 percent a decade it won’t be the rural paradise it is for long.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    To achieve the generally-considered-ideal "15 minute" urban design without cars or public transit (which is what the parent post is advocating), you absolutely require density higher than "single family separated townhome with a yard". You require shared walls and building up. WRT growth, Montana is roughly the size of Germany, but with 400k residents. It will take some 90+ years at the growth rate of 10% per decade to even break 1m residents, let alone Germany's 84m. That's well beyond my lifespan, though I'll do nothing to discourage the growth - that would be cruel. Even if I don't like living in an urban environment, I won't take that choice away from others.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      Less than half that population lives in rural Montana. Most are in cities.

glogla 3y ago

Of course! But why would you think that this is achievable? Look at the enormous amount of hatred even a small change like "your car, your house heating and your stove will use electricity instead of compressed refined dead dinosaurs" got. Look at how many people when told "we need to change things or this planet is going to be uninhabitable in a few decades" stick fingers in their ears and say "nu uh" or actively start claiming this is all made up. I'd love to have more sustainable vision of the future, but since most people would rather see humanity end than give up tiniest comfort or accept any change (even a good one, like people in walkable cities are actually happier than people in suburbs). So we don't exactly have a lot of manoeuvring space.

happytiger 3y ago
Well the reason I wrote to post was to inject the point into the conversation as it’s sorely lacking usually. Also, it’s been my experience that people only change when they are in incredible amounts of pain, and I think that that’s true of this debate with climate change, and it’s impacts on earth. As soon as food and water supplies are threatened, and people are having to retreat from coastal areas in the next few decades, the conversation may finally shift to meaningful action. And that’s the reason for my “optimism.” Obviously, for those of us who actually study the issue like yourself know it may be far too late to do anything about it, because by the time these impacts hit, there will be a great deal of downstream consequences, but I do think people will change eventually. If for no other reasons than because they have to, or at least they will then. Just a little sad you can’t avert the inevitable consequences that are so clearly laid out because people hold onto iterating on simple extensions of the existing failed ethos and paradigm, which is why I generally try to inject a transformation instead of iteration comment into these types of posts on online platforms. They are polarizing ideas, but if more of us injected this bias at scale and with great frequency I believe it could gradually change public opinion. And that is how you bring about change — the environmental consciousness is profoundly different than it was in the 50s and 60s, when a visit to the forest camping with the kids or even backpacking often included USFS run burn pit and people scoffed at the clean water and air acts, and it was done with similar educational and outreach so it really can change things — we do have impact as collective individuals in sharing our perspectives and alternative belief systems. So I don’t generally feel the need to provide the answers to how because the purpose of this comment and my many others like it is to anchor an alternative opinion to allow for alternatives to the dominant paradigm not solve the execution issues in providing a visionary societal transformation as that far exceeds what one person can do. But I do believe we should be actively talking about transformation and not iteration of the existing system much more actively.
- glogla 3y ago
  That is a better response than my sad little post deserved. Thank you.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    That’s just the kindest response ever. Thank you for being you!
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Well, the simple (not to be confused with easy, or pleasant) solution is to stop listening to those people. Sometimes people need to be dragged into the current century kicking and screaming.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Wise words those. I think this is inline with much of the thinking I’ve seen from policymakers I’ve read and talked with.

falcolas 3y ago

> into more livable, higher density Speaking for myself, but you’re describing hell. I’ve lived in high density urban environments, and moved back to Montana just to get away from that misery.

happytiger 3y ago
Higher density isn’t intrinsically high density urbanism. That’s a limiting idea. There’s a broad spectrum of density between Montana ruralism and downtown Manhattan, with different thresholds of possibilities at each degree of concentration along the way. Besides Montana is growing at 1 percent a year on average and that will certainly increase as winters become more mild. I believe it was Idaho, Montana and Florida that saw the highest population growth among U.S. states between 2020 and 2022 as well. If it grows 10 percent a decade it won’t be the rural paradise it is for long.
- falcolas 3y ago
  To achieve the generally-considered-ideal "15 minute" urban design without cars or public transit (which is what the parent post is advocating), you absolutely require density higher than "single family separated townhome with a yard". You require shared walls and building up. WRT growth, Montana is roughly the size of Germany, but with 400k residents. It will take some 90+ years at the growth rate of 10% per decade to even break 1m residents, let alone Germany's 84m. That's well beyond my lifespan, though I'll do nothing to discourage the growth - that would be cruel. Even if I don't like living in an urban environment, I won't take that choice away from others.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Less than half that population lives in rural Montana. Most are in cities.