4 ms·

«we are unlikely to come up with a magical technological fix to compensate for our bad behavior» Bad behaviour... We have sinned, apocalypse is coming for us..

by joak 2y ago

«we are unlikely to come up with a magical technological fix to compensate for our bad behavior» Bad behaviour... We have sinned, apocalypse is coming for us... Wondering which magical technological fix they are talking about. Using bicycles instead of cars seems to me like replacing a technology by another. Home insulation and heat pump vs chimney. The choice of technology does matter I think... But I don't understand where is the 'magical'.

kkfx 2y ago
One point is being flexible: we know the world change, in the end that's have happened countless of times, but we don't know exactly how it will change. So we need to been able to relocate both human settlements and food productions, this can't work in the current city-centric model. It can't also happen with roads and rails, they took too much time and resources to be built and than changed. We need water and air. We need spread settlements composed as much as possible of small buildings because the "large population" threat surface is than spread and relocate not so much large slice of people being spread could be done, small buildings could be built, rebuilt quickly and cheaply enough. We need a spread economy "glocal" enough, able to work connected thanks to current TLC/IT. Unfortunately ruling class do want cities because there it's easy to farm humans like chickens, makes them own nothing and comply to get food and accommodations without chances to revolt. Well, we know how novel Fordlandia like Arkadag, Innopolis, Neom, Telosa, Prospera, are the same failed, distopic, unsustainable experiment but they want them so desperately and most people do not want to change so desperately that probably we will loose a large slice of population trying to create these monsters. That's is.
bishbosh 2y ago
They are talking about carbon sequestration at meaningful scales.

by joak 2y ago

kkfx 2y ago

One point is being flexible: we know the world change, in the end that's have happened countless of times, but we don't know exactly how it will change. So we need to been able to relocate both human settlements and food productions, this can't work in the current city-centric model. It can't also happen with roads and rails, they took too much time and resources to be built and than changed. We need water and air. We need spread settlements composed as much as possible of small buildings because the "large population" threat surface is than spread and relocate not so much large slice of people being spread could be done, small buildings could be built, rebuilt quickly and cheaply enough. We need a spread economy "glocal" enough, able to work connected thanks to current TLC/IT. Unfortunately ruling class do want cities because there it's easy to farm humans like chickens, makes them own nothing and comply to get food and accommodations without chances to revolt. Well, we know how novel Fordlandia like Arkadag, Innopolis, Neom, Telosa, Prospera, are the same failed, distopic, unsustainable experiment but they want them so desperately and most people do not want to change so desperately that probably we will loose a large slice of population trying to create these monsters. That's is.

bishbosh 2y ago

They are talking about carbon sequestration at meaningful scales.