4 ms·

Just one hundred years ago tourism was only available to a tiny elite. Like with all goods and services provisions that have been scaled exponentially in the me

Just one hundred years ago tourism was only available to a tiny elite. Like with all goods and services provisions that have been scaled exponentially in the mean time, the problem is that there is poor accounting and management of side-effects (externalities). Impacts on environment and local communities are ignored as it is simpler and more profitable to do so. Sustainability is a complex problem facing every aspect of modern life that we have barely begun to acklowledge, let alone start really solving. E.g., the article does not discuss the interplay with the other intensive industry of the Canary islands (banana plantations) that also competes for resources and creates its own problems. It will take major economic, political and behavioral development to transition to long term sustainable economies and its anybody's guess what the final outcome will be.

Voultapher 2y ago
For me personally I've only recently connected the dots. Collectively as a society we are currently talking about carbon-neutral vs carbon-negative, global warming and clean energy. As someone who fell for that narrative for quite some time, I can see why. The more uncomfortable but in my opinion significantly more compelling answer to what stands in the way of a sustainable human co-habitation of planet earth, is: not CO2 emissions, it's modernity. The writing by Tom Murphy drove that point home for me. One example: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. Big picture: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/our-time-on-the-river/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/our-time-on-the-river/
- korantu 2y ago
  This is very dangerous point of view, which will lead to a lot of suffering. Humanity managed to lift vast majority of itself from abject poverty, grow enough food for everyone, prevent children mortality - unimaginable 100 years ago. And this is called modernity, which if reversed will bring back hunger and misery.
  - mcmoor 2y ago
    Yeah it's like we're currently stuck in a local minima in regards of environmentalism, and we can choose to go forward and try to improve using technology, or go backward and improve it by impoverishing ourselves. I'd argue that our actual minima is around 1950s, which means we are halfway forward to be able to geoengineer ourselves to a better earth than if we're not here at all. But it may be a futile hope.
    - Voultapher 2y ago
      :| For many years I believed in our ability to engineer our way out of this one. I'm an engineer by profession, and so are you I assume. It certainly shapes the way we view the world. If we continue our current growth of energy use, we'll be using the entire luminosity output of the Milky Way galaxy in 1000 years. Color me skeptical, but I say that won't happen. So something will have to give, and that's never ending growth. There are a lot of humans https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/ and increasingly fewer other animals. Extinction rates are up a thousand fold to the background and accelerating. Geoengineering like so many other ideas in this space are the lie we want to believe that there is a way forward that won't involve fundamentally changing our way of life. Let's just keep doing the same thing we have been doing, a way that is demonstrably causing the sixth mass extinction, but this time with ~sustainable growth~ ~green energy~ ~carbon offsets~ ...
      - abenga 2y ago
        The number of humans is going to plateau and start gradually declining by the turn of the century; that should put an end to the endless growth assumed in whatever model assumes that ludicrous use-of-entire-Milky-Way-luminosity prediction.
spacecadet 2y ago
An unpopular opinion really. I remember at the turn of the century people were concerned that China would ignore all environmental concerns and that they had the attitude, "The west got to be dirty to scale, so we should be allowed to as well"... Its really a human belief IMO, "the rich get to rape the environment for so long, its unfair to clamp down on me now". In my opinion- that is true. The wealthy should deplete their resources solving this, on earth, not mars. They do owe "us", for collectively hoarding wealth at the expense of everyday people... and have the time and resources to do so. Any other response is just an excuse and lies.
- spacecadet 2y ago
  I actually don't think the environmental problems we face will be solved until collectively we remove the burden of the everyday person to actually contribute. UBI. Until then it's a cycle of, extract resources, hoard capital, and minimize everyday people- so that the first two steps can continue without anyone at the top feeling uncomfortable. Well, I believe it will become VERY uncomfortable if this continues.

Voultapher 2y ago

For me personally I've only recently connected the dots. Collectively as a society we are currently talking about carbon-neutral vs carbon-negative, global warming and clean energy. As someone who fell for that narrative for quite some time, I can see why. The more uncomfortable but in my opinion significantly more compelling answer to what stands in the way of a sustainable human co-habitation of planet earth, is: not CO2 emissions, it's modernity. The writing by Tom Murphy drove that point home for me. One example: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. Big picture: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/our-time-on-the-river/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/our-time-on-the-river/

korantu 2y ago
This is very dangerous point of view, which will lead to a lot of suffering. Humanity managed to lift vast majority of itself from abject poverty, grow enough food for everyone, prevent children mortality - unimaginable 100 years ago. And this is called modernity, which if reversed will bring back hunger and misery.
- mcmoor 2y ago
  Yeah it's like we're currently stuck in a local minima in regards of environmentalism, and we can choose to go forward and try to improve using technology, or go backward and improve it by impoverishing ourselves. I'd argue that our actual minima is around 1950s, which means we are halfway forward to be able to geoengineer ourselves to a better earth than if we're not here at all. But it may be a futile hope.
  - Voultapher 2y ago
    :| For many years I believed in our ability to engineer our way out of this one. I'm an engineer by profession, and so are you I assume. It certainly shapes the way we view the world. If we continue our current growth of energy use, we'll be using the entire luminosity output of the Milky Way galaxy in 1000 years. Color me skeptical, but I say that won't happen. So something will have to give, and that's never ending growth. There are a lot of humans https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/ and increasingly fewer other animals. Extinction rates are up a thousand fold to the background and accelerating. Geoengineering like so many other ideas in this space are the lie we want to believe that there is a way forward that won't involve fundamentally changing our way of life. Let's just keep doing the same thing we have been doing, a way that is demonstrably causing the sixth mass extinction, but this time with ~sustainable growth~ ~green energy~ ~carbon offsets~ ...
    - abenga 2y ago
      The number of humans is going to plateau and start gradually declining by the turn of the century; that should put an end to the endless growth assumed in whatever model assumes that ludicrous use-of-entire-Milky-Way-luminosity prediction.

spacecadet 2y ago

An unpopular opinion really. I remember at the turn of the century people were concerned that China would ignore all environmental concerns and that they had the attitude, "The west got to be dirty to scale, so we should be allowed to as well"... Its really a human belief IMO, "the rich get to rape the environment for so long, its unfair to clamp down on me now". In my opinion- that is true. The wealthy should deplete their resources solving this, on earth, not mars. They do owe "us", for collectively hoarding wealth at the expense of everyday people... and have the time and resources to do so. Any other response is just an excuse and lies.

spacecadet 2y ago
I actually don't think the environmental problems we face will be solved until collectively we remove the burden of the everyday person to actually contribute. UBI. Until then it's a cycle of, extract resources, hoard capital, and minimize everyday people- so that the first two steps can continue without anyone at the top feeling uncomfortable. Well, I believe it will become VERY uncomfortable if this continues.