6 ms·

Humans have always consumed at the limits of their abilities, and we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability. There is no history of consumption being

Humans have always consumed at the limits of their abilities, and we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability. There is no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale. A few socialist countries have managed it, and everyone there wants to escape. In an era of exponentially expanding abilities, we should be massively increasing clean energy output through technologies like nuclear reactors.

woodruffw 3y ago
Having both a bone to pick with socialism and using a “this time it’s different” argument in the same comment is more than a little incongruous. Note that nobody in this conversation has disagreed about the virtues of building more nuclear power. The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Could you elaborate on what you mean by me making a "this time it's different" argument, and how it's incongruous with my criticism of socialist governments? >The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation. I think mass-production of nuclear reactors and vertical farms (to give a couple of examples) is substantially easier and more realistic than coordinating global caps and reductions in consumptions through mandatory limits on private industries and citizens.
myshpa 3y ago
> we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warnings_that_Humanity_May_Have_Exceeded_Earth's_Carrying_Capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warni... > no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale There have never been 8 billion people on the planet. > we should be massively increasing clean energy Agree, but that alone won't solve it.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment. We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment. Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop, with no activism required. >There have never been 8 billion people on the planet. With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption. >Agree, but that alone won't solve it. Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment Yes, you're true. We're so far behind them we can't see the line anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans (read it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:Estimates_of_how_the_different_control_variables_for_seven_of_nine_planetary_boundaries_have_changed_from_1950_to_present.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:... > Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop It's already stopping. What comes next is the rapid decline of the carrying capacity of the environment and the collapse of the species dependent on that environment. > With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption No, see my previous comment. Every country on earth has animal ag subsidies, although animal ag is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, atmospheric pollution (15-25%), eutrophication, soil erosion, and overfishing, all things that dangerously degrade our likelihood to survive. It's more bad then people usually realize. There's already 80% less insects (in last 25 years), and 90% of sharks are missing (meaning the collapse of fishing populations is on the horizon). Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974 > Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it? The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-approached.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap... UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur... + thousands of similar studies

woodruffw 3y ago

Having both a bone to pick with socialism and using a “this time it’s different” argument in the same comment is more than a little incongruous. Note that nobody in this conversation has disagreed about the virtues of building more nuclear power. The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation.

ETH_start 3y ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean by me making a "this time it's different" argument, and how it's incongruous with my criticism of socialist governments? >The observation is solely that you’re asking for something that’s substantially harder than anything else humanity has ever done while handwaving everything else away. That just isn’t good argumentation. I think mass-production of nuclear reactors and vertical farms (to give a couple of examples) is substantially easier and more realistic than coordinating global caps and reductions in consumptions through mandatory limits on private industries and citizens.

myshpa 3y ago

> we're in an era of exponentially increasing ability No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warnings_that_Humanity_May_Have_Exceeded_Earth's_Carrying_Capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Recent_Warni... > no history of consumption being artificially restricted at a global scale There have never been 8 billion people on the planet. > we should be massively increasing clean energy Agree, but that alone won't solve it.

ETH_start 3y ago
>No, we're not. We can't increase consumption indefinitely in a finite environment. We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment. Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop, with no activism required. >There have never been 8 billion people on the planet. With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption. >Agree, but that alone won't solve it. Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it?
- myshpa 3y ago
  > We are nowhere near the limits of the finite environnment Yes, you're true. We're so far behind them we can't see the line anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#Humans (read it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:Estimates_of_how_the_different_control_variables_for_seven_of_nine_planetary_boundaries_have_changed_from_1950_to_present.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity#/media/File:... > Once we reach those limits, growth will naturally slow and stop It's already stopping. What comes next is the rapid decline of the carrying capacity of the environment and the collapse of the species dependent on that environment. > With that many people, it's even harder to coordinate a unanimous reduction in meat consumption No, see my previous comment. Every country on earth has animal ag subsidies, although animal ag is a leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, atmospheric pollution (15-25%), eutrophication, soil erosion, and overfishing, all things that dangerously degrade our likelihood to survive. It's more bad then people usually realize. There's already 80% less insects (in last 25 years), and 90% of sharks are missing (meaning the collapse of fishing populations is on the horizon). Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974 > Why won't an increase clean energy production alone solve it? The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-approached.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap... UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/natur... + thousands of similar studies