2 ms·

I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is given that the land factor (economic term, hope I translated correctly) and discoveries of new ways to use

I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is given that the land factor (economic term, hope I translated correctly) and discoveries of new ways to use resources are dynamic factors. It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of most topics, the further the harder when you take into account the dynamism of these factors and the innovations (discoveries on how to use new materials, for example, that replace old ones, etc.)

stephc_int13 3y ago
Population is simply the most potent factor in everything our species is doing, less people = less energy use, less farming, less fishing, less waste, less everything.
lucb1e 3y ago
> I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is It's as you said: > It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of [things like] innovations Humans already use more resources than they regenerate (the definition of unsustainable). Currently, most of the world population lives in relative poverty compared to the people in places like Germany, USA, Japan, etc. It would be fair to have everyone live at this standard, but that costs even more resources, making it even less sustainable! We can hardly prevent other countries from wanting to innovate, so it will happen, and our problem will get worse if we do not gain better technology (and/or reduce our consumption of animal products, learn to stop heating offices across weekends, etc. It works on both the supply and demand side of resources). Precisely because it is hard to predict whether future innovations will materialize soon enough to fix those problems in a way that we do not reduce everyone's living standards, we cannot rely on the innovations happening and being deployed earth-wide in time
- germandiago 3y ago
  > Humans already use more resources than they regenerate Even if this was true, recycling can exist. Also, other materials can replace older ones. Given these, I am not sure what the right strategy would be, unless it is really urgent and justified (I always hear a lot of generic alarms but no concrete facts that something is going to happen AND it happens). Take into account that, especially for developing countries, resources and cheap energy are critical for development. No matter how much effort a spanish does, for example, in the reduction of CO2 (given the models are correct and that it is humans who warm up The Earth, something I am not convinced of at all), we are around 0.8% of total emissions. On the other hand, preventing China from burning coal was (last time I checked) making 400 million people back into poverty. Do you see the problem? The problem could be ecological to some extent. But... are we controlling investment vs return? Are models true? For me it is impossible and I think there has been a strong bias towards exaggerating because there is a lot of money in the middle, independently of the truth. That is my current view. They have been announcing the apocalypse since the 90s: everything flooded, global warming (that they conveniently changed to "climate change")... a lot of weird stuff. A highly politicized area of discussion and a huge business for some.

stephc_int13 3y ago

Population is simply the most potent factor in everything our species is doing, less people = less energy use, less farming, less fishing, less waste, less everything.

lucb1e 3y ago

> I fail to see what the ecological problem actually is It's as you said: > It is really difficult to make predictions x years ahead of [things like] innovations Humans already use more resources than they regenerate (the definition of unsustainable). Currently, most of the world population lives in relative poverty compared to the people in places like Germany, USA, Japan, etc. It would be fair to have everyone live at this standard, but that costs even more resources, making it even less sustainable! We can hardly prevent other countries from wanting to innovate, so it will happen, and our problem will get worse if we do not gain better technology (and/or reduce our consumption of animal products, learn to stop heating offices across weekends, etc. It works on both the supply and demand side of resources). Precisely because it is hard to predict whether future innovations will materialize soon enough to fix those problems in a way that we do not reduce everyone's living standards, we cannot rely on the innovations happening and being deployed earth-wide in time

germandiago 3y ago
> Humans already use more resources than they regenerate Even if this was true, recycling can exist. Also, other materials can replace older ones. Given these, I am not sure what the right strategy would be, unless it is really urgent and justified (I always hear a lot of generic alarms but no concrete facts that something is going to happen AND it happens). Take into account that, especially for developing countries, resources and cheap energy are critical for development. No matter how much effort a spanish does, for example, in the reduction of CO2 (given the models are correct and that it is humans who warm up The Earth, something I am not convinced of at all), we are around 0.8% of total emissions. On the other hand, preventing China from burning coal was (last time I checked) making 400 million people back into poverty. Do you see the problem? The problem could be ecological to some extent. But... are we controlling investment vs return? Are models true? For me it is impossible and I think there has been a strong bias towards exaggerating because there is a lot of money in the middle, independently of the truth. That is my current view. They have been announcing the apocalypse since the 90s: everything flooded, global warming (that they conveniently changed to "climate change")... a lot of weird stuff. A highly politicized area of discussion and a huge business for some.