4 ms·

Why limit humans back to some medieval levels? No need for that.

by RandomLensman 3y ago

paint 3y ago
[dead]
circuit10 3y ago
We don’t really need to do that, there are often more environmentally friendly ways to do similar things
eropple 3y ago
I don't see anyone saying that we should forego medicine and science, or global communication, or even industry--though we should be smarter about what we make and how we distribute it. But you (and I! I've done this too!) probably don't need to trivially junket through the Med or to have a weekend in Costa Rica to self-actualize. If we want to do it, we should pay for our externalities. A cruise ship's externalities are extremely fucking high, and they're paid for by...nobody, and all of us, at the same time.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  "Need" is such a loaded word... let's just find better fuels for cruise ships, let local communities decide if they want them to dock etc. and then people can continue enjoy cruises if they want to.
  - eropple 3y ago
    "Just" find "better fuels" than extremely energy-dense fossil fuels that, when you remove externalities from the equation, are already near a local maximum. D'oh! It's so forehead-slappingly easy! We should just do that! What you're really saying--whether or not you know it, and I don't know if ignorance or knowledge is worse here--is that we should "just" come back to this in twenty or thirty or a hundred years and in the meantime now we have created a silver-platter excuse to do nothing and continue the outlandishly negative global consequences on everyone for a hypothetical future that you can neither predict nor roadmap. Here's another one: once energy storage is solved as you posit, maybe then cruise lines should exist. If people want them. Until then, they should be priced with their externalities in and if that kills them (it probably will!) then they failed capitalism, gg no re.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      If you want serious discussions and progress on the issues you care about, I would strongly suggest to not lob accusations based on wild interpretations at people.
      - eropple 3y ago
        If you were at all interested in a "serious discussion", you already would've substantiated something, rather than "just invent better fuels" (yes! obviously! but how about today's problems?!) and you wouldn't have retreated to this wispy objection now.

Why limit humans back to some medieval levels? No need for that.

paint 3y ago

[dead]

circuit10 3y ago

We don’t really need to do that, there are often more environmentally friendly ways to do similar things

eropple 3y ago

I don't see anyone saying that we should forego medicine and science, or global communication, or even industry--though we should be smarter about what we make and how we distribute it. But you (and I! I've done this too!) probably don't need to trivially junket through the Med or to have a weekend in Costa Rica to self-actualize. If we want to do it, we should pay for our externalities. A cruise ship's externalities are extremely fucking high, and they're paid for by...nobody, and all of us, at the same time.

RandomLensman 3y ago
"Need" is such a loaded word... let's just find better fuels for cruise ships, let local communities decide if they want them to dock etc. and then people can continue enjoy cruises if they want to.
- eropple 3y ago
  "Just" find "better fuels" than extremely energy-dense fossil fuels that, when you remove externalities from the equation, are already near a local maximum. D'oh! It's so forehead-slappingly easy! We should just do that! What you're really saying--whether or not you know it, and I don't know if ignorance or knowledge is worse here--is that we should "just" come back to this in twenty or thirty or a hundred years and in the meantime now we have created a silver-platter excuse to do nothing and continue the outlandishly negative global consequences on everyone for a hypothetical future that you can neither predict nor roadmap. Here's another one: once energy storage is solved as you posit, maybe then cruise lines should exist. If people want them. Until then, they should be priced with their externalities in and if that kills them (it probably will!) then they failed capitalism, gg no re.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    If you want serious discussions and progress on the issues you care about, I would strongly suggest to not lob accusations based on wild interpretations at people.
    - eropple 3y ago
      If you were at all interested in a "serious discussion", you already would've substantiated something, rather than "just invent better fuels" (yes! obviously! but how about today's problems?!) and you wouldn't have retreated to this wispy objection now.