3 ms·

> The idea that we're at some fundamental limit where we can't keep building technology without destroying the environment seems wrong. It is wrong. Technology

> The idea that we're at some fundamental limit where we can't keep building technology without destroying the environment seems wrong. It is wrong. Technology fundamentally requires the destruction of the environment, to make a spear you must nap flint and harvest a hard, straight stick. That’s resource destruction on a very small scale. We have scaled up to Billions of people and near ubiquitous hi-tech. So the scale is what’s eating us, the earth is big, but 8 Billion people is a heck of a lot when every one of them requires highly refined goods.

kiba 3y ago
Rich people consume more and pollute more than poorer people. So, yes, numbers do play a role, but so does how much each individual consume. People in rich society could certainly improve their quality of life quite considerably by cutting back on certain consumption, such as building more walkable and sustainable environment. We probably still have to make certain sacrifice, such as eating less meat.
tim333 3y ago
It doesn't really require destruction of the environment. Change to the environment maybe but you can do things like greening deserts that probably improve it. The environment changes naturally anyway, technology or not.
stillwithit 3y ago
On what timeline though? Why our bubble in time is specifically owed resources to make barely updated iPhones each year? Why these crappy synthetic gadgets? Why not compute in chemistry or biology? Business machines of the 1900s are not the only viable substrate for computing.
slibhb 3y ago
If you want to get down to it, forget technology. Living requires "destruction of the environment". The question is whether it's sustainable in the short, medium, and long term. I don't think that 8 billion people is too many. As we adopt more environmentally friendly technology, I think we'll realize that the earth can easily sustain 8 billion.

kiba 3y ago

Rich people consume more and pollute more than poorer people. So, yes, numbers do play a role, but so does how much each individual consume. People in rich society could certainly improve their quality of life quite considerably by cutting back on certain consumption, such as building more walkable and sustainable environment. We probably still have to make certain sacrifice, such as eating less meat.

tim333 3y ago

It doesn't really require destruction of the environment. Change to the environment maybe but you can do things like greening deserts that probably improve it. The environment changes naturally anyway, technology or not.

stillwithit 3y ago

On what timeline though? Why our bubble in time is specifically owed resources to make barely updated iPhones each year? Why these crappy synthetic gadgets? Why not compute in chemistry or biology? Business machines of the 1900s are not the only viable substrate for computing.

slibhb 3y ago

If you want to get down to it, forget technology. Living requires "destruction of the environment". The question is whether it's sustainable in the short, medium, and long term. I don't think that 8 billion people is too many. As we adopt more environmentally friendly technology, I think we'll realize that the earth can easily sustain 8 billion.