Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 265 posts

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#51

Post by DiggyJohnson »

ericmcer wrote: post #49
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we hav…

This is one of the wildest things I’ve read on the internet… this year?

Why does a lack of creative design mean human experience is meaningless?

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#52

Post by adriand »

spullara wrote: post #2

It is only compatible because we are approaching peak population mid to late century and then we will slowly contract over time until extinction through lack of births... if trends continue.

Although I find the prospect disturbing, I think at some point (assuming we manage this dangerous transition) we will produce children in a technological way that is decoupled from human mothers.

I could also see a social movement developing that campaigned for this on the grounds of equity for women. It could be presented as both essential for the species and empowering for all genders…and that might be true.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#53

Post by jxramos »

jxramos wrote: post #50
shmageggy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This paper states this as though it is desirable and inevitable. No it doesn't? Two sentences later: > But modernity has been enabled by the rapid and accelerating expenditure of our one-time inheritance of fossil fuels, and by drawing down the resources and ecosystems of our finite Earth—none of which can be sustained as we transition from a resource-rich frontier to a human-dominated planet.

I still don't fathom this singular deposit of fossil fuels in the earth, are they truly some artifact of a huge die off of living creatures from centuries ago or is there some steady generation through time that replenishes and generates the crude oil beneath our feet? I'd like to learn more about where the fossil in fossil fuels comes from and just what sort of biomass quantity we're talking about and when on earth…

I got curious to see what an oil well cross section may look like to see a pool of oil, there's some fascinating stuff on Youtube in this domain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzDrheWDhGw

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#54

Post by gandalfgeek »

This kind of Malthusian thinking has a horrible track record. Imagine if we drastically altered the course of technological progress every time a cabal of "experts" declares that we're going to destroy the planet.

I'm not arguing that we should be reckless with the environment, but there are massive existential risks to humanity with this kind of self-limiting belief system. It's not obvious that one side of the argument is right.

If we even slowed down to linear growth from our current exponential path, life on Earth would probably suck within a generation.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#55

Post by fardo »

ericmcer wrote: post #49
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we hav…

>Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics?

As the word is currently used, no, but mostly because it’s seemingly used to represent, in the public consciousness

> intentional genetic control we dislike

When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like.

I expect many, many more “genetic controls we like” as medical and biological sciences advance, I think “eugenics” will always be viewed as a dead end.

[1] https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/201...

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#56

Post by apsurd »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #51
ericmcer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we hav…

This is one of the wildest things I’ve read on the internet… this year? Why does a lack of creative design mean human experience is meaningless?

Agree, thank you for being first to say it.

That humanity is _converging_ on some "intentional" optimal outcome is dramatically depressing to me in a way that i wasn't prepared to read today.

Now i don't know what's left or right, but insofar as my time here is concerned, let chaos blossom! Way more fun

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#57

Post by [deleted] »

ericmcer wrote: post #49
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we hav…

[deleted]

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#58

Post by fomine3 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #13
spullara wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that will be a problem for sure. We will get a preview of it in Asia.

Despite all the fearmongering and wailing and gnashing of teeth, Japan is doing okay with a shrinking population.

There are SERIOUS problem expected to come, primary for working population, pension, and national insurance. Some are delayed thanks to huge national debt. Demographics is really good indicator for the future, but it's hard to improve.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#59

Post by gnramires »

ericmcer wrote: post #49
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? It has deeply immoral roots and has led to some of the most messed up scenarios in our history, but it is also a crazy powerful tool we have been unable to leverage in a non-evil way. (This is kinda tangential but related) I have a weird theory about humanities purpose: Assuming someone/thing created life (if life wasn't created then it truly is random chaos and we hav…

Let me tell you what our purpose is: consciousness. It's to have good conscious experiences.

I think we'll soon achieve a pretty good understanding of meaning that we haven't acknowledge in a long time. I think philosophy has been misleading us into thinking purpose/meaning/motivation is not philosophically tractable. But once you acknowledge it's a property of consciousness (which I think is understandable to be a new insight, given we have finally come to terms with being amazing neural machines ourselves), I think it's a matter of studying information and neural experiences, together with a broader view (of survival, sustainability, and ethics) to have a pretty good idea of what it means to have a good life.

My current hypothesis is as follows: (1) Richness/Depth of experience; (2) Some kind of notion of beauty; (3) A well-functioning motivation system (which we associate with 'happiness'/'satisfaction'/etc. (4) Sustainability and ethics: ensuring all sentient beings through time and space share this wealth.

I hope we can approach a formal theory of ethics and meaning soon. I hope to form a community around discussing and organizing this knowledge (I am notoriously bad with promises though, so if anyone can please help, and join in). Imagine we had a "Super Declaration of [Lifeform] Human Rights", nearly-universally accepted, to guide us! (I think Effective Altruism is a nice step in this direction)

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#60

Post by fny »

gandalfgeek wrote: post #54

This kind of Malthusian thinking has a horrible track record. Imagine if we drastically altered the course of technological progress every time a cabal of "experts" declares that we're going to destroy the planet. I'm not arguing that we should be reckless with the environment, but there are massive existential risks to humanity with this kind of self-limiting belief system. It's not obvious that one side of the argu…

This whole paper is lazy, panic-ridden grift. Why lazy? Because it's core thesis is that fossil fuels are a natural constraint... The word "nuclear" does not appear a single time in the entire paper!

We have more than enough carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen on this earth to do incredible things given an energy source. It's time to stop dooming and start exploring.

Also, fuck Mars. Why not try to make the desert liveable?

Post reply on HN