7 ms·
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 for
by 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 agoAny 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 agoThe 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 agoIt 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 agoPerhaps 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 agoPerhaps 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.
- _heimdall 3y agoWait, are you arguing that eating junk food and not exercising aren't really choices? I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.
- kiba 3y agoI hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice. If choice is so easy, anyone can pick up a textbook about mathematics, barring deficiency in cognitive capacity, become knowledgeable about mathematics. That doesn't happen not because people are stupid, but because the task is genuinely hard. If choice is so easy, you would be able to able to choose to not to eat for three days and achieve that. For some people, it is extremely difficult. For others, that is easy. I have experienced both situations. Real freedom, then, is to understand that your own mind has their own cause and effect and how to manipulate that to achieve 'freedom of choice', and the corresponding training to be able to do so. To have whole societies exercising, then, is to understand the causal factors involved and the knobs needed to achieve that, and the organizational capacity to do so. That is why to say that you 'have a choice' to not exercise or exercise is a defeatist attitude and to consign whole group of people to early death. What people need is not 'choices' but solutions to achieve those choices. I myself continue to struggle. I have lost weight and then regained. There are time in which I can exercise for hours. There are times in which I achieved physical fitness that I at time I never thought I could. I will keep trying, but clearly I do not yet have mastery of my own mind.
- _heimdall 3y agoOh I'm specifically not saying a central authority should dictate what we can and can't have, I'd be very against that. My point is only that we as individuals could give up quite a few things that would collectively make a good dent in lowering energy use without ruining society, well-being, etc.
- t43562 3y agoPoorer countries (I am from one) will want higher living standards and there are a lot of people in that condition. I think they will condone sea mining to reach them.