81–90 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads as "ready, fire, aim, fire again" being a virtue. It's not, at mega-human scales.
So who makes the choices then? Who is the group that validates we are ready to try out a new idea?
> Today’s widespread middle class living standard is the result of several one-time events for the planet, such as mass migration into cities, the movement of women into the formal working economy, and pervasive automation of labor. He forgot a big one: Massive use of fossil fuels, whose long term effects are, depending on where you live, threatening to undermine that very standard of living. The challenge of this ge…
Solar and Wind beat fossil fuels now. There's no need to compromise on standards of living, that's a toxic and false narrative that we need to suffer in order to fix things.
Redefining a high standard of living doesn't mean having a low standard of living, but it often means living differently than we have in recent decades.
For example, you can live a luxurious lifestyle in an energy efficient way by living in a smaller and efficient house. If it's an all electric house your standard of living can even increase due to better indoor air quality.
Multifamily and village style walkable neighborhoods, whether in rural or urban areas, and where people make fewer long drives for work and groceries, can also improve quality of life.
But unfortunately those kinds of lifestyles are not very attainable, and rarely affordable in places in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar and Wind beat fossil fuels now. There's no need to compromise on standards of living, that's a toxic and false narrative that we need to suffer in order to fix things.
I agree completely, but convincing the broader population to get on board to switch to renewables and a renewably powered electric lifestyle is challenging, especially in places like the US where use of fossil fuels is a cultural identity issue for many. Redefining a high standard of living doesn't mean having a low standard of living, but it often means living differently than we have in recent decades. For example,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely, but convincing the broader population to get on board to switch to renewables and a renewably powered electric lifestyle is challenging, especially in places like the US where use of fossil fuels is a cultural identity issue for many. Redefining a high standard of living doesn't mean having a low standard of living, but it often means living differently than we have in recent decades. For example,…
It becomes an easy decision to get an electric f150 when gas costs $8 a gallon because of carbon taxes and a full charge is only a couple bucks
The Mustang Mach E uses 190wH per mile, so each mile costs ~2c.
The Mustang Mach 1 ICE car gets 20mpg, so each mile costs 15c.
So today in MI, the energy cost of the electric is already 1/7 of the ICE. Nonetheless, you will find far more EVs per capita in California, where the EV energy cost advantage is far lower due to high electricity prices.
The difference is cultural.
Maybe it will change and MI will be an EV buying state, lets see. Alas, Biden has thrown the auto industry a bit of a softball with vehicle efficiency (far less aggressive than what he campaigned on), out of a practical need to bolster his support in the industrial and largely gas powered Midwest.
As a result, I don't suspect you will see a national carbon tax in the US anytime soon. That's the unfortunate reality that we have to work with.
As long as enough make it to their grandchildren...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads as "ready, fire, aim, fire again" being a virtue. It's not, at mega-human scales.
So who makes the choices then? Who is the group that validates we are ready to try out a new idea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar and Wind beat fossil fuels now. There's no need to compromise on standards of living, that's a toxic and false narrative that we need to suffer in order to fix things.
Nuclear.
We just have to use the tools that we have today (plus efficiency improvements).
We do need optimists if we are going to dream and build a great future. Techno-optimism has become almost a taboo, sometimes even within the groups that actually work on cutting edge tech (at least on the computing side of things). We shouldn’t be naive and ignore potential negatives of course, but more optimism and dreaming of a great future we can build towards should be encouraged.
I think most of the people I know would think I'm a seriously pessimistic individual, but in this twisted way I think I'm actually sort of the opposite (I imagine they'd agree with this too).
But I don't think that's the problem the world faces.
"you must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time, have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be." -Jim Stockdale, describing the Stockdale paradox. For me to be remotely optimistic, I would need to see more people confronting those brutal facts. They are truly and properly brutal.…
With respect to climate change, there is a complete disconnect between the predictions of doom and the proposed solutions. Electric cars ain’t gonna do it. Massive disruption and reordering if the economic order and a real reduction in global well-being are the price to be paid if we’re really serious. I just don’t see intellectual honesty among people who claim that climate change is an existential threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So who makes the choices then? Who is the group that validates we are ready to try out a new idea?
I dunno, elected ones? That seems like a good start, rather than "one guy with a lot of money".