4 ms·

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.

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.