4 ms·

The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. Encouraging the onw

The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. Encouraging the onward march mindlessly is not helpful. There has to be some self-reflection and reevaluation of current strategies on how to get to the next technological age, if we are to get there without: nuclear holocaust; human-made plague; trashing our planet so badly we can no longer eat or drink; using up the resources needed for computers and therefore causing computer infrastructure to stagnate and decay just when we need it to run an AI; using up all our hydrocarbon energy reserves and running out of energy that we need to keep up the onward march... There are many pitfalls that might cause this march into the future to end abruptly and miserably, even if the goal of a new technological era is physically and strategically possible given our current resource constraints. We would do well to avoid falling into a pit along the way, and a social dialogue about possible pitfalls is a necessary part of that.

einhverfr 13y ago
> The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. But this itself has a long-term cost in terms of both consumption and complexity. Put another way, you can't solve the environmental problems, really, if you demand that consumption continues to rise exponentially over time. What I think we are actually being sold with the green energy agenda is a way to continue to grow consumption because this is important to macroeconomists. The problem though is that this leads to permamently debt-ridden, destitute workers robbed of social context in order to make the wealthy even more rich. The environmental damage could be contained by taxes to reduce consumption but that has very significant implications for our way of life. Reducing consumption though is the only way out.
invalidOrTaken 13y ago
One barrier is that there are collective action problems all over the friggin' place. If it's profitable to pollute, and Company A does while Company B does not, Company A will prevail. Okay, well, this is what we have governments for. Polluting is outlawed, and both companies are prevented from defecting. But there's more than one country in the world. And clean industry is expensive. So if country A pollutes, and country B doesn't... My point is that it's not enough to just "decide" to tone it down, because societies that don't (although they carry the seeds of their own destruction) will dominate ones that do.

einhverfr 13y ago

> The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws. But this itself has a long-term cost in terms of both consumption and complexity. Put another way, you can't solve the environmental problems, really, if you demand that consumption continues to rise exponentially over time. What I think we are actually being sold with the green energy agenda is a way to continue to grow consumption because this is important to macroeconomists. The problem though is that this leads to permamently debt-ridden, destitute workers robbed of social context in order to make the wealthy even more rich. The environmental damage could be contained by taxes to reduce consumption but that has very significant implications for our way of life. Reducing consumption though is the only way out.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago

One barrier is that there are collective action problems all over the friggin' place. If it's profitable to pollute, and Company A does while Company B does not, Company A will prevail. Okay, well, this is what we have governments for. Polluting is outlawed, and both companies are prevented from defecting. But there's more than one country in the world. And clean industry is expensive. So if country A pollutes, and country B doesn't... My point is that it's not enough to just "decide" to tone it down, because societies that don't (although they carry the seeds of their own destruction) will dominate ones that do.