Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the planet being destroyed, but minor health effects of air pollution. Which in first world countries, is vastly less than it used to be. And could be eliminated entirely in a few years with technology like solar power and electric cars. Possibly it could have been seriously cut back decades ago, if environmentalists hadn't fought so hard against nuclear.
Smog in our brains
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Smog in our brains
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the question is "were they wrong?" Soot-streaked cities of the industrial revolution had to be soot-streaked. They didn't have any other technology. They had to use what they could to make better things. It provided better economic benefit, and ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). We're at a point where we have better things, but choose to not use them. It's intrinsically different than the in…
> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?
Re: Smog in our brains
#23I wouldn't be surprised if some future historians are able to look back at modern cities the same way that we look at granny pictures of a soot-streaked city of the industrial revolution. "Yes, some of them thought that it was bad to have all that stuff around, but most thought it wasn't too serious compared to the immediate economic benefit it brought."
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Re: Smog in our brains
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someday people may also look back at the television and the smartphone and compare the garbage we call mass media that we put into our minds to the lead in Roman water pipes.
If they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the three are the same. And if they had similar results, hypothetically, they would be for entirely different reasons. edit: I'm interested to know more about peoples' concerns about smartphones and other dev…
Re: Smog in our brains
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you referring to non-ionizing radiation? Is there anything yet to show negative effects? My understanding is that there hadn't been conclusive study, but from what we know of thermal radiation there aren't known mechanisms for damage to occur within the FCC(think it's their rules?) guidelines.
They refer to "mass media", so I assume the point is technology as a dopamine button... however, cell phones have been linked to damaged / lower quality sperm in men. That could subtly damage society in the same way that lead-based paints hurt Rome.
Re: Smog in our brains
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the question is "were they wrong?" Soot-streaked cities of the industrial revolution had to be soot-streaked. They didn't have any other technology. They had to use what they could to make better things. It provided better economic benefit, and ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). We're at a point where we have better things, but choose to not use them. It's intrinsically different than the in…
> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?
Re: Smog in our brains
#27I wouldn't be surprised if some future historians are able to look back at modern cities the same way that we look at granny pictures of a soot-streaked city of the industrial revolution. "Yes, some of them thought that it was bad to have all that stuff around, but most thought it wasn't too serious compared to the immediate economic benefit it brought."
I definitely get a little worried about fumes, in a modern urban city. Diesel pollutants are local, and when I walk across a 4+ lane street with traffic, I always find myself practically gagging on exhaust fumes. That can't be healthy. We should really ban big diesel rigs from areas with population density above a certain threshold. Especially considering how little the regulations around diesel emissions are actuall…
Re: Smog in our brains
#28How can it be that there are not decades of thorough, prioritized studies on the connection between air pollution and cognitive impairment?
Re: Smog in our brains
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?
On the whole I still think things look pretty good. We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We're getting better at purifying things we already messed up. We're also making tech to do all this cheaper so that if and when the rest of Asia become more modern, they might, just might, get to skip the polluting parts.
We are getting better at reducing our environmental impact from tech that have been in use for decades. And that too after decades of negligence and denial.
But we are still mostly blind about how todays new tech will impact environment if it becomes widespread. For example, most people who consider electric cars as something that will undo the environmental damage from fossil fuels, fail to consider what new kinds of impact these automobiles have on the environment. For ex. The batteries. If all of todays cars started going electric, that is a lot of batteries, right? How does the environmental impact look like after 30 years of growing use of these batteries? Just an example.
The point is, the problem is our boundless affinity for new and better things. If it is cars, then we want suvs and we will have three of them if we can afford it. We throwaway old stuff and buy new stuff without a second thought. Most of the industries of the world are producing stuff that is planned to break in a couple of years. "Planned obsolesce", they call it. All of these tendencies are the dangerous ones. Not the use of a single thing like burning of fossil fuels or coal or using fertilizers.
So I think it is the tendency of our current system to maximize consumption, the real danger, and I think there is very little hope that will change, and that will be our undoing...
Re: Smog in our brains
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the planet being destroyed, but minor health effects of air pollution. Which in first world countries, is vastly less than it used to be. And could be eliminated entirely in a few years with technology like solar power and electric cars. Possibly it could have been seriously cut back decades ago, if environmentalists hadn't fought so hard against nuclear.
A technology whose proponents's best answer even today is "wait until the next breakthrough".
Nuclear: The one trick the evil environmentalists won't tell you about that will solve all your energy problems.