3 ms·

These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do

These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us. But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?" People aren't going to use less energy, especially since radical consumption cutbacks of the sort that Europe sometimes attempts do seem to reduce the quality of human life, sometimes pretty radically. It seems like most people think the priority that matters is "doing what's good for the planet" while essentially disregarding the effect it has on human beings and their ability to survive and thrive. Unless you want people to die every winter and summer, the goal when talking about climate and energy should not be ""save the planet, humans are a plague, the planet would be better without us!"", it should be to maximize human flourishing. If we can't agree that human flourishing is a worthy goal, we have to step back, waaay back, and reevaluate why we're even having this discussion to begin with. If we really do think "humans are a plague and the planet would be better without us," things might get pretty terrifying pretty quickly. Who does that benefit? What is the end goal of that mindset? We can't abide by anti-humanist ways of "solving" problems. If we focus on human flourishing, everyone will get closer to what they want. Unless, of course, what they want is to decrease human flourishing. Also, any alternative energy discussion that doesn't include nuclear isn't serious about solving the problem, just kneecapping current trends in energy production. The case against nuclear is mostly ill-informed in my experience. Nuclear, the latest version of which is far safer and more feasible, will be the future, it's just a matter of who in the world will get to it first.

mistermann 2y ago
Sir: surely you aren't suggesting that The Humans are going about this whole thing wrong, are you? Because that would be crazy.
hackerlight 2y ago
> But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?" That's a strawman. I assume you're taking about degrowth loons on social media. Why would you do that? In the real world, policymakers and center-left political parties (and center-right parties outside of the US) do not want people to stop using technology. What policymakers are trying to do is shift from one technology (oil and gas) to another technology (firmed renewables or nuclear). The reason for this is to maximize human flourishing by preventing wet bulb temperatures near the equator from becoming too large relative to the 31-35 degree survivability limit, among other consequences which you can read about elsewhere.
- MisterDizzy 2y ago
  There are a lot of assumptions taken for granted in there. But sure, less technology is not the real goal, that's not a good way to phrase it, good point. I suppose the better way to say it would be that the goal is less energy use and lower quality of life. But the important part is that nobody who is pushing that sort of cutback from a position of power actually buys what they're selling. They just want the lesser people below them to buy it. As for why they want that, I'm not sure.
briantakita 2y ago
> These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us. Whatever you do, do not mention that the US Military & MIC is the #1 producer of CO2. And do not suggest that we reduce the CO2 emissions of the US military & MIC. It will make the people here angry. We can tolerate a little bit of talk about private jets flying into Davos. With each per capita attendee using the CO2 of >1000 people * years. So they can talk about "saving the planet". But not too much. Rules for thee but not for me. Own nothing & be happy. Do not forget that.
- MisterDizzy 2y ago
  Precisely. The people who tell you that you must radically cut back "for the planet" do not believe what they are selling, but they do think it would be very good for them if you believed it (and it would be).

mistermann 2y ago

Sir: surely you aren't suggesting that The Humans are going about this whole thing wrong, are you? Because that would be crazy.

hackerlight 2y ago

> But instead, we focus on the far less feasible "how can we stop people from using so much post-industrial technology?" That's a strawman. I assume you're taking about degrowth loons on social media. Why would you do that? In the real world, policymakers and center-left political parties (and center-right parties outside of the US) do not want people to stop using technology. What policymakers are trying to do is shift from one technology (oil and gas) to another technology (firmed renewables or nuclear). The reason for this is to maximize human flourishing by preventing wet bulb temperatures near the equator from becoming too large relative to the 31-35 degree survivability limit, among other consequences which you can read about elsewhere.

MisterDizzy 2y ago
There are a lot of assumptions taken for granted in there. But sure, less technology is not the real goal, that's not a good way to phrase it, good point. I suppose the better way to say it would be that the goal is less energy use and lower quality of life. But the important part is that nobody who is pushing that sort of cutback from a position of power actually buys what they're selling. They just want the lesser people below them to buy it. As for why they want that, I'm not sure.

briantakita 2y ago

> These discussions are starting to worry me. There isn't much point to talking about the climate until we can start looking at this issue as a matter of "how do we increase human flourishing," which should be a universal goal for all of us. Whatever you do, do not mention that the US Military & MIC is the #1 producer of CO2. And do not suggest that we reduce the CO2 emissions of the US military & MIC. It will make the people here angry. We can tolerate a little bit of talk about private jets flying into Davos. With each per capita attendee using the CO2 of >1000 people * years. So they can talk about "saving the planet". But not too much. Rules for thee but not for me. Own nothing & be happy. Do not forget that.

MisterDizzy 2y ago
Precisely. The people who tell you that you must radically cut back "for the planet" do not believe what they are selling, but they do think it would be very good for them if you believed it (and it would be).