4 ms·

Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental

by komali2 10mo ago

Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.

lazide 10mo ago
There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
- komali2 10mo ago
  We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right. Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this. If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
  - lazide 10mo ago
    Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already). This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try. Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc). If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that. And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
    - komali2 10mo ago
      Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism. But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
      - lazide 10mo ago
        It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one). It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.) It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
        komali2 10mo ago
        > It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks. Expropriation mostly means taking from corporations and giving to everyone, and maybe you're in a more developed nation but in the USA that would just mean giving it to nearly the majority of the people there. E.g. clearing out grocery stores and giving people food, and moving people from slums into empty luxury condos. Plenty of housing to fit the homeless as well, but they're a small slice. If the PRC isn't capitalist, neither is the USA. Market dynamics drive everything in the USA, they have a concept of private property (no 99 year rule has triggered), and the means of production are owned by a capital class that uses it to exploit labor for further profit. Just because they have strong regulations and the government injects money all over the place doesn't mean it's not capitalist. It's just like a supercharged version of some highly socialized version of a European nation, plus an oversized secret police operation, but that's more on the political side than the economic one. > It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? Mostly corporations, so, capitalism over, so, nothing lol. If you mean their billionaire owners, I guess they would probably be keeping their heads down in this kind of situation. The idea is the improvement of quality of life for all people, even the billionaire class could hardly complain at a massive reduction in poverty and thus crime. They've been stealing for the majority of people for so long I think it's only fair to expropriate it back. But ok, how do you shift the entire world off fossil fuels without dismantling capitalism? What profit motive would drive someone to choose a more expensive energy solution that requires reconfiguring equipment?
- immibis 10mo ago
  Yeah we could. Just not to the extremely wasteful American standards of living. Even America can only support them because it controls the whole world's money printer.

by komali2 10mo ago

Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.

lazide 10mo ago

There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.

komali2 10mo ago
We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right. Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this. If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
- lazide 10mo ago
  Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already). This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try. Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc). If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that. And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
  - komali2 10mo ago
    Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism. But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
    - lazide 10mo ago
      It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one). It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.) It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
      - komali2 10mo ago
        > It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks. Expropriation mostly means taking from corporations and giving to everyone, and maybe you're in a more developed nation but in the USA that would just mean giving it to nearly the majority of the people there. E.g. clearing out grocery stores and giving people food, and moving people from slums into empty luxury condos. Plenty of housing to fit the homeless as well, but they're a small slice. If the PRC isn't capitalist, neither is the USA. Market dynamics drive everything in the USA, they have a concept of private property (no 99 year rule has triggered), and the means of production are owned by a capital class that uses it to exploit labor for further profit. Just because they have strong regulations and the government injects money all over the place doesn't mean it's not capitalist. It's just like a supercharged version of some highly socialized version of a European nation, plus an oversized secret police operation, but that's more on the political side than the economic one. > It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? Mostly corporations, so, capitalism over, so, nothing lol. If you mean their billionaire owners, I guess they would probably be keeping their heads down in this kind of situation. The idea is the improvement of quality of life for all people, even the billionaire class could hardly complain at a massive reduction in poverty and thus crime. They've been stealing for the majority of people for so long I think it's only fair to expropriate it back. But ok, how do you shift the entire world off fossil fuels without dismantling capitalism? What profit motive would drive someone to choose a more expensive energy solution that requires reconfiguring equipment?
immibis 10mo ago
Yeah we could. Just not to the extremely wasteful American standards of living. Even America can only support them because it controls the whole world's money printer.