4 ms·

I’m not talking about technology, I’m talking about having an understanding of how reality works. I fully agree with you that one should have a sense of ethics

by _yb2s 2y ago

I’m not talking about technology, I’m talking about having an understanding of how reality works. I fully agree with you that one should have a sense of ethics and use the precautionary principle when deciding what to do with that knowledge. With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… We’re past the point of just going back to preindustrial tech with less negative impacts- but with a deeper understanding of reality we could, e.g. pull carbon straight out of the atmosphere to manufacture almost anything in a renewable way, while also understanding biochemistry enough to make things that won’t be toxic or persist in the environment, and are readily broken down and reused.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction, and because there are 8 billion people in the world and there will always be the unscrupulous who will use that technology for destruction. And even ignoring the unscrupulous, the existing habitat destruction from said technology use already (in my valuation) is too great to balance out some of the so-called positive uses of technology.
- rowanG077 2y ago
  You think people in the hunter gatherer days lived a better more humane life? You walked too close to a branch and got a small cut and a few weeks later you are dead. Oh no, You fell and can't get up while a predator is chasing your group, better prepare to be eaten alive. You accidentally ate that one fruit that looks similar to another one, oops you die shitting your bowels out. What's that? You are getting your third child, too bad the other two died in child birth together with their mother. I really don't think you realize how cushy modern life is compared to even the hardships of a few hundreds years ago.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  > Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.” In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up. Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always. It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it. Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical. No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there. Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      I sympathize with you and feel as Thoreau said that "men have become the tools of their tools." I care deeply about the natural environment, and find most modern technology dehumanizing. I enjoy simple living and spend most of my time on a small sailboat with no electricity or motor. I personally study "primitive" skills like gathering food, and making boats and buildings with simple hand tools. I feel an essential part of being a healthy human is having a deep connection to, and knowledge about your local environment and watershed. However, there is more than a small chance of the future I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air, with little to no impacts. I am an academic scientist, and am focused on solving the specific problems that will make what I am talking about possible- and basically everything I mentioned is already working fairly well... and is already cheaper, safer, and more practical then petroleum chemistry and mining if you factor in externalities. However, the only real path I see to getting people to use it is to make it better still, so it is fundamentally cheaper and superior, without even factoring in the externalities and nasty impacts of our current way of doing things. Degrowth is quite frankly not going to happen voluntarily, it's a cultural and political non-starter, and also leaves us with an inability to fix the massive damage to the planet we've already caused, and leaves us dying from diseases that we are very close to understanding how to prevent. We've decimated and poisoned our natural environment such that simple living is no longer even possible in most places- where I live the fish and other wildlife are almost all gone, and the few left are too toxic to eat. Let's instead go all in on understanding science so that we can in principle do almost anything we can imagine with little resources or impacts, and then also have much higher standards for what we actually choose to do with the knowledge. Edit: I looked at your blog and agree with a lot of what you are saying, but also disagree with a lot, but see you are a deep thinker that cares a lot about this stuff. I think it would be interesting to talk to you more.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  > I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Come on now. Renewable energy is gaining on fossil fuels around the world. The air in London used to be thick with smog, and now it's not. Acid rain is a thing of the past. The ozone hole is shrinking. Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too?
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    > Come on now. Renewable energy is gaining on fossil fuels around the world. What matters to me is CO2. When we can drop that below 400, then I will be impressed. As for now, I'm waiting to see if this is not just a case of Jevon's paradox. > Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too? No, those are local technologies that anyone can make with some basic knowledge. I am not against primitive technologies. We will always use them. What I am saying is that we should be like the Amish: examine individual technologies for their long-term consequences, and not develop those. And, we should regress many as well. The discussion of which and how would be lengthy but we should have it (as a society).
    - akoboldfrying 2y ago
      I think we agree that technology is not inherently a force for good. But I take your original claim to be that it is exclusively a force for (environmental) evil, which I think is demonstrably untrue. Although you have now added an exception for "primitive" forms, it's not clear to me (a) that these are any better for the environment than "advanced" forms (fire can be pretty bad for the environment) or (b) where the line between "primitive" and "advanced" is in any case.
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        A lot of people I think mistakenly assume technology, capitalism, etc. are fundamentally evil because they’ve been used to do awful things… but they are just amoral powerful tools. One needs to have a sense of ethics, quality, and responsibility to make good decisions in their use. Deeper basic scientific knowledge also allows for more accurate predictions of the consequences and risks- enabling more responsible actions.

by _yb2s 2y ago

vouaobrasil 2y ago

> With deeper knowledge we can develop more humane and environmentally safe technology, and cure diseases that cause massive suffering… This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction, and because there are 8 billion people in the world and there will always be the unscrupulous who will use that technology for destruction. And even ignoring the unscrupulous, the existing habitat destruction from said technology use already (in my valuation) is too great to balance out some of the so-called positive uses of technology.

rowanG077 2y ago
You think people in the hunter gatherer days lived a better more humane life? You walked too close to a branch and got a small cut and a few weeks later you are dead. Oh no, You fell and can't get up while a predator is chasing your group, better prepare to be eaten alive. You accidentally ate that one fruit that looks similar to another one, oops you die shitting your bowels out. What's that? You are getting your third child, too bad the other two died in child birth together with their mother. I really don't think you realize how cushy modern life is compared to even the hardships of a few hundreds years ago.
_yb2s 2y ago
> Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.” In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up. Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always. It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it. Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical. No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there. Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I sympathize with you and feel as Thoreau said that "men have become the tools of their tools." I care deeply about the natural environment, and find most modern technology dehumanizing. I enjoy simple living and spend most of my time on a small sailboat with no electricity or motor. I personally study "primitive" skills like gathering food, and making boats and buildings with simple hand tools. I feel an essential part of being a healthy human is having a deep connection to, and knowledge about your local environment and watershed. However, there is more than a small chance of the future I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air, with little to no impacts. I am an academic scientist, and am focused on solving the specific problems that will make what I am talking about possible- and basically everything I mentioned is already working fairly well... and is already cheaper, safer, and more practical then petroleum chemistry and mining if you factor in externalities. However, the only real path I see to getting people to use it is to make it better still, so it is fundamentally cheaper and superior, without even factoring in the externalities and nasty impacts of our current way of doing things. Degrowth is quite frankly not going to happen voluntarily, it's a cultural and political non-starter, and also leaves us with an inability to fix the massive damage to the planet we've already caused, and leaves us dying from diseases that we are very close to understanding how to prevent. We've decimated and poisoned our natural environment such that simple living is no longer even possible in most places- where I live the fish and other wildlife are almost all gone, and the few left are too toxic to eat. Let's instead go all in on understanding science so that we can in principle do almost anything we can imagine with little resources or impacts, and then also have much higher standards for what we actually choose to do with the knowledge. Edit: I looked at your blog and agree with a lot of what you are saying, but also disagree with a lot, but see you are a deep thinker that cares a lot about this stuff. I think it would be interesting to talk to you more.
akoboldfrying 2y ago
> I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Come on now. Renewable energy is gaining on fossil fuels around the world. The air in London used to be thick with smog, and now it's not. Acid rain is a thing of the past. The ozone hole is shrinking. Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > Come on now. Renewable energy is gaining on fossil fuels around the world. What matters to me is CO2. When we can drop that below 400, then I will be impressed. As for now, I'm waiting to see if this is not just a case of Jevon's paradox. > Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too? No, those are local technologies that anyone can make with some basic knowledge. I am not against primitive technologies. We will always use them. What I am saying is that we should be like the Amish: examine individual technologies for their long-term consequences, and not develop those. And, we should regress many as well. The discussion of which and how would be lengthy but we should have it (as a society).
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    I think we agree that technology is not inherently a force for good. But I take your original claim to be that it is exclusively a force for (environmental) evil, which I think is demonstrably untrue. Although you have now added an exception for "primitive" forms, it's not clear to me (a) that these are any better for the environment than "advanced" forms (fire can be pretty bad for the environment) or (b) where the line between "primitive" and "advanced" is in any case.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      A lot of people I think mistakenly assume technology, capitalism, etc. are fundamentally evil because they’ve been used to do awful things… but they are just amoral powerful tools. One needs to have a sense of ethics, quality, and responsibility to make good decisions in their use. Deeper basic scientific knowledge also allows for more accurate predictions of the consequences and risks- enabling more responsible actions.