4 ms·

>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 th

>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
- ETH_start 3y ago
  The last 20 years witnessed the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems. Your analysis underestimates the adaptability and technological capabilities of human civilization. We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed. So a better way to protect natural environments, than pushing for reductions and caps on consumption, is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems And that's supposed to be a good thing? > We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed No, without the ecosystem we're done. Not much of it remains. > is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth Not enough time before last pieces are gone. What's about the economic growth that you find so valuable? Don't you see that money are just stupid tokens in a very stupid game? That the economy is rigged? That healthy environment is much more valuable than ... what? Tons of plastic everywhere and elevator music in a supermarket? Do you have children? How do you explain to them that we don't have forests and wild animals anymore because you've loved burgers and big cars too much? But honey look how rich I got. You'd really rather have blade runner than star trek future? You win. This I cannot comprehend. Over and out.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >>And that's supposed to be a good thing? It negates the appeal you could make to people that their standard of living will decline unless they accept steep cuts now. If people's consumption can grow in the face of ecological disaster, then there's nothing to suggest it won't continue to grow as the natural environment continued to be paved over. >>Not enough time before last pieces are gone. I think it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating. I'm not saying that the environment should not be protected. I'm arguing that the most effective path for doing that is to go full bore toward expanding the production of clean energy, especially from the source that seem the most capable of fully replacing baseline fossil fuel based power plants, which is nuclear reactors. It should not be a choice between consumption and the environment. I consider both to be good things, all other things being equal, and I would like to see both maximized. High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives with more opportunity, and lower poverty.

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

ETH_start 3y ago
The last 20 years witnessed the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems. Your analysis underestimates the adaptability and technological capabilities of human civilization. We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed. So a better way to protect natural environments, than pushing for reductions and caps on consumption, is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems And that's supposed to be a good thing? > We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed No, without the ecosystem we're done. Not much of it remains. > is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth Not enough time before last pieces are gone. What's about the economic growth that you find so valuable? Don't you see that money are just stupid tokens in a very stupid game? That the economy is rigged? That healthy environment is much more valuable than ... what? Tons of plastic everywhere and elevator music in a supermarket? Do you have children? How do you explain to them that we don't have forests and wild animals anymore because you've loved burgers and big cars too much? But honey look how rich I got. You'd really rather have blade runner than star trek future? You win. This I cannot comprehend. Over and out.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >>And that's supposed to be a good thing? It negates the appeal you could make to people that their standard of living will decline unless they accept steep cuts now. If people's consumption can grow in the face of ecological disaster, then there's nothing to suggest it won't continue to grow as the natural environment continued to be paved over. >>Not enough time before last pieces are gone. I think it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating. I'm not saying that the environment should not be protected. I'm arguing that the most effective path for doing that is to go full bore toward expanding the production of clean energy, especially from the source that seem the most capable of fully replacing baseline fossil fuel based power plants, which is nuclear reactors. It should not be a choice between consumption and the environment. I consider both to be good things, all other things being equal, and I would like to see both maximized. High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives with more opportunity, and lower poverty.