4 ms·

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to incre

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source. I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.

t43562 3y ago
That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters. Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.
    - kiba 3y ago
      It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.
        kiba 3y ago
        Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powered by a system that is designed to exploit brains for profit. It's like eating junk food is a choice. Or not exercising is a 'choice'. They are useless excuses that justify the status quo rather than empowering us to do something about it.
gottorf 3y ago
> There still one good choice, just use less power. All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will continue to be for a while) the least-evil source of energy for humanity. I look towards a future powered by nuclear and renewables with better energy storage technology, perhaps even to a degree where energy is effectively limitless. Your view, I'm afraid, is incompatible with continued human flourishing.
- dboreham 3y ago
  > To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.
  - collegeburner 3y ago
    a barrel of oil is equivalent to around twenty-five thousand man hours of work. sacrificing that would result in a colossal hit to quality of life. and ironically, the additional people needed to mitigate that might actually result in more ecological impact, to say nothing of broadening a global underclass of widget producers we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential energy sources. but "using less" is a misguided assumption
    - kiba 3y ago
      We can use less cars and use more trains. Energy efficiency is also an addition in the crease of available energy source, since said energy sources can be deployed to more productive, less harmful processes. Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.
      - collegeburner 3y ago
collegeburner 3y ago
"just use less" is a very prescriptive line that i rarely find accompanied by concrete ideas on how to do so without huge reductions in welfare and quality of life. past some point, we must consider how highly we value the habitat of a rare lemur or something weighed against the benefit to conscious beings the above does not exclude a reduction in our hyperconsumerist tendencies. i live in a pretty minimalist fashion and 90% of what i own was passed down from relatives or picked up secondhand. i am somewhat baffled that more people don't do this, if for no other reason than cost savings
- kiba 3y ago
  Walk more. Drive less. Get rid of parking minimums. Easier said than done of course, but that's politics for you. We have very good reason to reduce environmental pollution now, because pollution literally kill people, and not some obscure species that only a few people are aware of.

t43562 3y ago

That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.

_heimdall 3y ago
Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters. Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.
  - kiba 3y ago
    It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.
      - kiba 3y ago
        Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powered by a system that is designed to exploit brains for profit. It's like eating junk food is a choice. Or not exercising is a 'choice'. They are useless excuses that justify the status quo rather than empowering us to do something about it.

gottorf 3y ago

> There still one good choice, just use less power. All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will continue to be for a while) the least-evil source of energy for humanity. I look towards a future powered by nuclear and renewables with better energy storage technology, perhaps even to a degree where energy is effectively limitless. Your view, I'm afraid, is incompatible with continued human flourishing.

dboreham 3y ago
> To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.
- collegeburner 3y ago
  a barrel of oil is equivalent to around twenty-five thousand man hours of work. sacrificing that would result in a colossal hit to quality of life. and ironically, the additional people needed to mitigate that might actually result in more ecological impact, to say nothing of broadening a global underclass of widget producers we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential energy sources. but "using less" is a misguided assumption
  - kiba 3y ago
    We can use less cars and use more trains. Energy efficiency is also an addition in the crease of available energy source, since said energy sources can be deployed to more productive, less harmful processes. Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.
    - collegeburner 3y ago

collegeburner 3y ago

"just use less" is a very prescriptive line that i rarely find accompanied by concrete ideas on how to do so without huge reductions in welfare and quality of life. past some point, we must consider how highly we value the habitat of a rare lemur or something weighed against the benefit to conscious beings the above does not exclude a reduction in our hyperconsumerist tendencies. i live in a pretty minimalist fashion and 90% of what i own was passed down from relatives or picked up secondhand. i am somewhat baffled that more people don't do this, if for no other reason than cost savings

kiba 3y ago
Walk more. Drive less. Get rid of parking minimums. Easier said than done of course, but that's politics for you. We have very good reason to reduce environmental pollution now, because pollution literally kill people, and not some obscure species that only a few people are aware of.