5 ms·

> industrial society I dislike blaming "industrial society" as an impersonal, abstract villain. The fact is that it is humans who may either organise themselve

> industrial society I dislike blaming "industrial society" as an impersonal, abstract villain. The fact is that it is humans who may either organise themselves and build a society or fail in the trying. Modern industry and the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. Even on the scale of our solar system, if we consider the exploration of other planets. The fact is that humans have trouble thinking at scale. We had never achieved the scale of activity that we have in our modern world. The individual human has always harboured resentments and been subject to pyschological problems and limitations. We cannot expect to scale human growth without confronting human psychology. That said, fanaticism and the petrostate kakistocracies are the worst elements of our world today. It's their scale that has become an existential threat. Although I welcome an intelligent discussion, how we can make the world a better place in a practical way is the constructive mode that I prefer. > individual mobility turns into collective congestion when everyone has a car This is a pertinent example to illustrate. The manufacturing is brilliant, the machines are ingenious, but humans fail at scale if they see only selfish interest. We certainly can do better. > One does not have to embrace Illich’s romanticization of premodern times This "embrace" would be my fundamental objection to his solutionless critique.

palata 3y ago
> the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. There is no doubt about that. But it has also brought us into a mass extinction (that's happening right now), it brought climate change (it will add to the biodiversity issue), and it relies very heavily on fossil fuels which are not unlimited. > to his solutionless critique. I believe that we need to agree on the problem before we can find solutions. I strongly believe that we have an energy problem, and the biodiversity loss and climate problem are consequences of it. In my view, we need to do less with less (a.k.a. degrow). Doesn't mean we "go back to the Middle Age", just that we address different challenges (instead of "how do I get people to buy an iPhone every year?", maybe "how do I get people to keep the benefits of smartphones without overconsumption?). The thing is that some people seem to believe that on the contrary, we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems (which is, in my understanding of the current fundamental state of physics, absolutely impossible). Some even seem to believe that surviving on Mars would be better than "having less" on Earth... Of course we as a species probably won't agree, and therefore we won't really control where it goes: we will just have to deal with whatever happens.
- heresie-dabord 3y ago
  > we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems Wacky thinking. Another modern achievement, some very wealthy people literally have more money than neurons. ^_^ > I strongly believe that we have an energy problem There is no doubt that the challenge is now. But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... if corrupt petrostate kakistocracies don't destroy civilisation first. I also agree that "overconsumption" is a clear failure to scale.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - markhahn 3y ago
    surely it's not just an energy problem - but a resource problem. I dislike the "overconsumption" mantra (and its degrowth kin). The problem is waste - fast fashion is a great example. just stop making stupid choices - people still need clothes, and we still need lots of people.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      But why even care? You can grow cotton. It's the ultimate bio-degradeable material. The problem I have with "overconsumption" and consumerism people is they never actually seem to have any idea what the problem really is.
    - palata 3y ago
      > surely it's not just an energy problem - but a resource problem. It is an energy problem. The modern society is built upon fossil fuels, that's a fact. Remove the fossil fuels, and it collapses. Turns out that "building upon fossil fuels" means "gradually removing them". It's just a question of time, and we are talking decades, not centuries. We will live long enough to see it, most likely. We need to rethink society to use less energy in general, and that includes consuming less of everything.
  - ska 3y ago
    > There is no doubt that the challenge is now. But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... Of the first part, there is no doubt - the second statement is not nearly so clear (at least, on the necessary timelines)
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

palata 3y ago

> the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale. There is no doubt about that. But it has also brought us into a mass extinction (that's happening right now), it brought climate change (it will add to the biodiversity issue), and it relies very heavily on fossil fuels which are not unlimited. > to his solutionless critique. I believe that we need to agree on the problem before we can find solutions. I strongly believe that we have an energy problem, and the biodiversity loss and climate problem are consequences of it. In my view, we need to do less with less (a.k.a. degrow). Doesn't mean we "go back to the Middle Age", just that we address different challenges (instead of "how do I get people to buy an iPhone every year?", maybe "how do I get people to keep the benefits of smartphones without overconsumption?). The thing is that some people seem to believe that on the contrary, we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems (which is, in my understanding of the current fundamental state of physics, absolutely impossible). Some even seem to believe that surviving on Mars would be better than "having less" on Earth... Of course we as a species probably won't agree, and therefore we won't really control where it goes: we will just have to deal with whatever happens.

heresie-dabord 3y ago
> we should not care about our survival on Earth and start looking at other solar systems Wacky thinking. Another modern achievement, some very wealthy people literally have more money than neurons. ^_^ > I strongly believe that we have an energy problem There is no doubt that the challenge is now. But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... if corrupt petrostate kakistocracies don't destroy civilisation first. I also agree that "overconsumption" is a clear failure to scale.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- markhahn 3y ago
  surely it's not just an energy problem - but a resource problem. I dislike the "overconsumption" mantra (and its degrowth kin). The problem is waste - fast fashion is a great example. just stop making stupid choices - people still need clothes, and we still need lots of people.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    But why even care? You can grow cotton. It's the ultimate bio-degradeable material. The problem I have with "overconsumption" and consumerism people is they never actually seem to have any idea what the problem really is.
  - palata 3y ago
    > surely it's not just an energy problem - but a resource problem. It is an energy problem. The modern society is built upon fossil fuels, that's a fact. Remove the fossil fuels, and it collapses. Turns out that "building upon fossil fuels" means "gradually removing them". It's just a question of time, and we are talking decades, not centuries. We will live long enough to see it, most likely. We need to rethink society to use less energy in general, and that includes consuming less of everything.
- ska 3y ago
  > There is no doubt that the challenge is now. But our industrial and technical capabilities can solve the problem... Of the first part, there is no doubt - the second statement is not nearly so clear (at least, on the necessary timelines)

Slava_Propanei 3y ago

[dead]