4 ms·

This is one of the reasons why I'm not very optimistic for environmentalism. People's needs and wants are sort of like gasses: they expand to fill the space the

This is one of the reasons why I'm not very optimistic for environmentalism. People's needs and wants are sort of like gasses: they expand to fill the space they're in. More efficient engines in cars often just mean they're a tiny bit more efficient and significantly faster than they actually need to be. (rather than significantly more efficient and relatively slow) Modern computers are incredibly fast, but we just keep making webpages heavier, and operating systems heavier. So although many modern computers are quite efficient when considering speed to power consumption, they could use significantly less power, except for the fact that people are always chasing the next thing. We eat up our new efficiencies the moment we invent them.

longitudinal93 2y ago
Aka Jevon's Paradox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Euphorbium 2y ago
Eventually you will need an antimatter reactor to display a text website and run a messaging app slower than 40 years ago.
bilsbie 2y ago
Sounds like a false dichotomy. There’s no reason we can’t have technology and luxury and a great environment.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  Sadly, those who produce the technology (ie many on this forum) will happily sacrifice the environment to retain the power dynamic.
- everdrive 2y ago
  There is a reason: human nature. We could have both in principle, but time and time again we just expand until we are unable to continue. (and then until a technological breakthrough takes things further) It feels a lot like the obesity problem; the solution in principle is fairly simple, (people just need to eat less) but in practice this isn't something that's very easy for people to do. The bulk of people are unsuccessful here.
  - vikramkr 2y ago
    We don't really do that though, population growth is leveling off on its own. Industrial revolution pretty much broke the malthusian trap. Now growth of economies fuels growth in GDP per capita instead of growth of capita. We've also made a few rather significant technological breakthroughs against the obesity problem recently. Human nature's proven to be a bit more complex than that.
    - everdrive 2y ago
      I'll concede your argument once we stop building GPU farms just so I can ask google a semantic question.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    What is required is a worldview that isn't based on conspicuous consumption, but balanced growth. Left as an exercise for the reader if human nature can be compatible with this worldview.
    - vikramkr 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_growth,_1700-2100,_2022_revision.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... looks pretty compatible to me!
- vikramkr 2y ago
  Honestly kinda surprised how quick people are with the old malthusian trap arguments - weird how they still hold that much sway when it hasn't really panned out.
  - api 2y ago
    We evolved in an environment of conflict and scarcity. Our brains don't know how to handle the idea that we are no longer subject to those kinds of constraints. Of course it's also possible that being perpetually on guard for limits and risks is part of how we avoid them. The catastrophes don't happen because people thought they would and took actions such as investing in next generation energy R&D to try to avoid them. It's probably some of both.
agumonkey 2y ago
I wonder if there's no way to implement some control mechanism in culture. A human group staying stable for a few years by rule, and allow itself some changes, capped at some % of the system.
- vikramkr 2y ago
  Without any control mechanisms, human population growth is already leveling out globally (correlated with increased material prosperity and opportunity basically). So, there's not really a case for needing a mechanism like that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chabons 2y ago
In general I agree, for instance an Apple Watch crams in so much hardware, that the battery frequently lasts less than a day. Compare that to my Garmin 245, which often lasts 2 weeks on a single charge if it's not using the GPS. It doesn't do as much, but that's fine. I'd love to see more "quiet" tech which eschews the pattern you describe above, and just focusses on doing the thing it's supposed to well so you don't have to think about it. EInk is another promising technology in this area.

longitudinal93 2y ago

Aka Jevon's Paradox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Euphorbium 2y ago

Eventually you will need an antimatter reactor to display a text website and run a messaging app slower than 40 years ago.

bilsbie 2y ago

Sounds like a false dichotomy. There’s no reason we can’t have technology and luxury and a great environment.

darby_nine 2y ago
Sadly, those who produce the technology (ie many on this forum) will happily sacrifice the environment to retain the power dynamic.
everdrive 2y ago
There is a reason: human nature. We could have both in principle, but time and time again we just expand until we are unable to continue. (and then until a technological breakthrough takes things further) It feels a lot like the obesity problem; the solution in principle is fairly simple, (people just need to eat less) but in practice this isn't something that's very easy for people to do. The bulk of people are unsuccessful here.
- vikramkr 2y ago
  We don't really do that though, population growth is leveling off on its own. Industrial revolution pretty much broke the malthusian trap. Now growth of economies fuels growth in GDP per capita instead of growth of capita. We've also made a few rather significant technological breakthroughs against the obesity problem recently. Human nature's proven to be a bit more complex than that.
  - everdrive 2y ago
    I'll concede your argument once we stop building GPU farms just so I can ask google a semantic question.
- r00fus 2y ago
  What is required is a worldview that isn't based on conspicuous consumption, but balanced growth. Left as an exercise for the reader if human nature can be compatible with this worldview.
  - vikramkr 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_growth,_1700-2100,_2022_revision.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... looks pretty compatible to me!
vikramkr 2y ago
Honestly kinda surprised how quick people are with the old malthusian trap arguments - weird how they still hold that much sway when it hasn't really panned out.
- api 2y ago
  We evolved in an environment of conflict and scarcity. Our brains don't know how to handle the idea that we are no longer subject to those kinds of constraints. Of course it's also possible that being perpetually on guard for limits and risks is part of how we avoid them. The catastrophes don't happen because people thought they would and took actions such as investing in next generation energy R&D to try to avoid them. It's probably some of both.

agumonkey 2y ago

I wonder if there's no way to implement some control mechanism in culture. A human group staying stable for a few years by rule, and allow itself some changes, capped at some % of the system.

vikramkr 2y ago
Without any control mechanisms, human population growth is already leveling out globally (correlated with increased material prosperity and opportunity basically). So, there's not really a case for needing a mechanism like that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

chabons 2y ago

In general I agree, for instance an Apple Watch crams in so much hardware, that the battery frequently lasts less than a day. Compare that to my Garmin 245, which often lasts 2 weeks on a single charge if it's not using the GPS. It doesn't do as much, but that's fine. I'd love to see more "quiet" tech which eschews the pattern you describe above, and just focusses on doing the thing it's supposed to well so you don't have to think about it. EInk is another promising technology in this area.