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

91–100 of 265 posts

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

#91

Post by throwawaylinux »

scottLobster wrote: post #33
throwawaylinux wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, because Japan has had decades of being the only country in the developed world with that distinction, while the rest of the global economy continued to grow. That gave it advantages and opportunities that won't exist for many countries once the developed world at large ages into mass retirement

> Yes, because Japan has had decades of being the only country in the developed world with that distinction, while the rest of the global economy continued to grow.

That's not what the propagandists claimed though.

> That gave it advantages and opportunities that won't exist for many countries once the developed world at large ages into mass retirement

What unique advantages and opportunities that won't exist for others? This sounds familiar.

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

#92

Post by airtonix »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #84
dreadlordbone wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except starvation has gone down and quality of life has gone up for the large majority of the human population. Where are you coming from with "a trillion people who live in the edge of starvation"? Some assumed doomsday situation? Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better.

> Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better. Past performance does not guarantee future results. In fact, what this article is saying is that mathematically, our future results are practically guaranteed to be worse than they have been in the past. I don't find your comment at all persuasive because you have not even attempted to grapple with this issue presented in the article.

No post body was provided.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

diputsmonro wrote: post #74
ch4s3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ultimately a humanist set of values that lead to that conclusion. If we value human happiness we should try to make as much of that as possible.

Sure, but more lives doesn't mean a net increase in happiness. A trillion people who live in the edge of starvation are probably less happy overall than a few billion who are well fed. I mean, what's the point if being a humanist of you don't care about the human?

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by chii »

skissane wrote: post #76
fardo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 e…

> 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. Historically, many cases of "eugenics" involved a lack of informed consent, even blatant coercion. That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no", and I know couples who have (due to mora…

Yes this! Eugenics is only when someone else decides it for you.

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

#95

Post by spullara »

adriand wrote: post #52
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.

Not an entirely unbelievable end game. Will it be done by families or the government?

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

#96

Post by t0bia_s »

fny wrote: post #60
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…

I agree. We spending ridcolous amount of money and fuel to colonizing Mars/space but at same time we are not able to feed millions starving children on our planet.

Instead of panicking we should change our politics, that seems to me, is pathological in many ways. Our planet have enough space and energy sources. For example in Russia there is a lot of inhabited places with great weather conditions to live, but it is politics who makes those places terrible to live in.

Nuclear energy is incredible source of energy and waste could be shoot out into space?

Alarmism that predict inevitable collapse of our planet and blaming individuals as a source of those problems is hypocrisy. Individual will never damage environment as corporates driven by lobby and politics.

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

#97

Post by llsf »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #68

Similar things were predicted in the 70s but new sources of energy and improvements in productivity invalidated those predictions. Obviously at some point limits will kick in (unless we can expand to other planets) but what to do about that is more of a political question than a scientific one. I personally think it is more appealing to attempt expanding the limits, as we've done in the past, than to pre-emptively ad…

Would law of physics kick in ? If it takes thousands of years to produce oil/gas/coal, and months to extract and consume it... then what political solution do have ? My concern is that we might hit an energy crisis (Russia/Ukraine is just the tip of the iceberg). We need oil/gas/coal for everything around us (clothes, transportation, heat, cement, iron, energy). For energy we could use nuclear for baseline, and some renewable. For iron, we could use hydrogen instead of coal (see above for energy) For cement, we could electricity (see above for energy) For heat we could use electricity (and better insulation) (see above for energy) For transportation we could use electricity for ground transportation (trains, trucks, cars, light mobility) and keep the planes on oil, hydrogen, etc. For clothes... well we could use the rest of oil left.

Our needs in energy are growing, and the reserve or oil/gas/coal is finite and even if there are still a lot available, it might be a long tail and so too expensive to extract. We might need to plan for a shortage (or too expensive) oil/gas/coal. Renewable is nice, but the amount of energy needed to replace oil/gas/coal is just massive, we cannot produce and install renewable fast enough. We need hundreds more nuclear reactors, just for US alone. This is likely a national security question. In that sense it is a political question based on physic emergency.

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

#98

Post by meany »

I think the authors do a disservice to their cause with the inclusion of judgmental, emotional rhetoric such as sentences like: “ From this perspective, it seems likely that future generations will label the past two centuries as the Fossil Fuel Age rather than the Industrial Revolution—emphasizing the critical importance of a now-depleted resource over a self-flattering celebration of human innovation”

It suggests they’re not looking at all options to solve our problems, and that there is a moral imperative to support a de-growth ideology.

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

#99

Post by ben_w »

adastra22 wrote: post #87
sidewndr46 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have suggested in the same comment that somehow we will have nearly limitless carbon-negative energy but also that the amount of energy to get to Mercury is too high to make the trip worth it. This does not follow from the initial assumption.

Why spend X/kg to get something from mercury when you could spend 1/4 or 1/8 as much to get it from the asteroid belt?

A lot more Mercury than sum of all asteroids. On the scale of "this century" this may only matter for von Neumann probes building a Dyson swarm, but that's not a 0% possibility and you did ask for a reason.

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

#100

Post by ben_w »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #75
adastra22 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamond-based molecular nanotechnology, combined with fusion and high efficiency solar as sources of power will make all of our technology and infrastructure carbon sinks. By the end of this century I expect we will be concerned about CO2 going too low and causing a glacial period. PS Mercury is too far in-system to be that useful. It takes less energy to get to/from the outer planets than it does Mercury. The cold t…

We can just turn off the carbon sinks in that case, there's plenty of carbon around to grab off the ground. And release some methane if needed.

Eh, if it's economical to have the sinks at that scale, we probably won't turn them off for the same reason we "could" turn the CO2 sources off but don't.
Post reply on HN