11 ms·

The problems we need addressing could be happening in decades (some are manifesting already) so the rates of today do not have to be the ones in 50 years. I wou

by soco 2y ago

The problems we need addressing could be happening in decades (some are manifesting already) so the rates of today do not have to be the ones in 50 years. I would rather focus on the closer dangers, than on what might happen in centuries... we are already over 8 billions, why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Humanity will be still around and that looks to me like the only important gain.

ben_w 2y ago
The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. > why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Indeed, this is my position too. Hyperbolic discounting of the future: we don't know what's coming, let the future sort itself out and worry about the next 5 years. 25 years, we might get AI good enough for robot workforce and we can all retire instantly with no need for more kids entering the workforce to replace the pensioners, might get anti-aging and an end to old-age pensions, might get both, might get neither. (That said, the example I gave was a reduction to, not by, 6.9%; it would be a global population of 552 million).
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  > The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lead is still in certain common fuels, some paints, and foods to this day.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Really? So far as I can tell, only used in avgas (and being phased out), banned in paints in many countries. Food legal limits are outside my ability to judge — though I know they exist, I don't know if the legal limits are "the smallest reliability detectable level at the time the law was written" or something else. That said, if you know how to turn any lab-only solution into an economically viable solution, please do — the world has plenty of room for improvement! :D
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      My point is we cannot leave it to market research and forces to solve this for us. Unwavering collective action is required to overcome the greed and apathy that allows things like lead to continue to destroy our minds and environments.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Depends on the issue.* I think you can make a good argument that collective action helped end slavery, I don't think you can make a good argument that anything other than market forces is bringing us the transition to renewable energy. Where's lead in that? I don't know. I don't even know if it's the same answer for each of your three uses of lead. Ozone was easy to get an international agreement to fix, because it already had economic alternatives. * and if you want to argue semantics over "are economic forces anything other than the de-facto collective action of the agents in the economy?", which I'm sure someone has energy for, but I'm not that someone, so I'll acknowledge it and move on.

by soco 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. > why would I worry if in centuries we are a billion less? Indeed, this is my position too. Hyperbolic discounting of the future: we don't know what's coming, let the future sort itself out and worry about the next 5 years. 25 years, we might get AI good enough for robot workforce and we can all retire instantly with no need for more kids entering the workforce to replace the pensioners, might get anti-aging and an end to old-age pensions, might get both, might get neither. (That said, the example I gave was a reduction to, not by, 6.9%; it would be a global population of 552 million).

paulryanrogers 2y ago
> The environmental problems we have today already have solutions in the lab, it's just about making them economical and scaling them up. 'just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lead is still in certain common fuels, some paints, and foods to this day.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Really? So far as I can tell, only used in avgas (and being phased out), banned in paints in many countries. Food legal limits are outside my ability to judge — though I know they exist, I don't know if the legal limits are "the smallest reliability detectable level at the time the law was written" or something else. That said, if you know how to turn any lab-only solution into an economically viable solution, please do — the world has plenty of room for improvement! :D
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    My point is we cannot leave it to market research and forces to solve this for us. Unwavering collective action is required to overcome the greed and apathy that allows things like lead to continue to destroy our minds and environments.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Depends on the issue.* I think you can make a good argument that collective action helped end slavery, I don't think you can make a good argument that anything other than market forces is bringing us the transition to renewable energy. Where's lead in that? I don't know. I don't even know if it's the same answer for each of your three uses of lead. Ozone was easy to get an international agreement to fix, because it already had economic alternatives. * and if you want to argue semantics over "are economic forces anything other than the de-facto collective action of the agents in the economy?", which I'm sure someone has energy for, but I'm not that someone, so I'll acknowledge it and move on.