This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet.
Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
121–130 of 265 posts
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#122Similar 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…
> Similar things were predicted in the 70s but new sources of energy and improvements in productivity invalidated those predictions.
ok, cool. So you've identified the limits (energy and productivity).
Are you sure productivity has grown? Is this growth sustainable?
For example, agriculture. Highly dependent on rapidly disappearing resources Like i.e. dirt. If you look at erosion rates in the US, we are on track to run out of soil by end of century. The petro-chemical fueled "green revolution" exhausts and kills biodiversity, leading to soil death in a century-- and we are 50 years into this. Water. See "US Drought Monitor".
So have we really achieved long-term (> 100 year) productivity improvements in agriculture?
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#123This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet.
The richest 10% of the global population are responsible for an estimated 47% of emissions. The problem has never been that there are too many people. The problem is that there is a small number of people that are destroying the planet for the rest of us.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes this! Eugenics is only when someone else decides it for you.
it's not encoded in law, but we do have a society where who can have many children is determined by economic factors that are not fully under ones control.
lack of economic ability is not the same as someone forcing you not to have children. And you can still have children even when facing economic hardship - lots of people have done it (think immigrant families who start out poor). I would also claim that a lot of western nations subsidize families already, so economic factors is not considered eugenics imho.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority o…
The choice isn't even starting from the middle of the spectrum. We already have the foot on the accelerator, and it's unlikely we'll let up with our current generation of leaders. I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. It will only be once the next generation of leaders comes into power, maybe…
>I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here.
The planet will do fine, but even stating such a thing is still commit anthropomorphism. The planet will continue to exist for a long time, no matter what the fate of mankind will be.
Even life is most likely to continue prospering in a way or in an other.
We, the human species, are not the planet. Let’s stop to use formulation like "the planet is in danger". No it’s not. The biosphere already went through five major extinction, and life is still there.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#126This. This is really the real direction we need. Changing to renewable energy is only one small part of the whole problem. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet.
This is such a lie. There are not "too" many people. Let's look at four nations China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These make up about 40% of the population of the world [1]. If you look at their per capita emissions, China is highest (7.6), India is 1.8, Pakistan is 0.9, and Bangladesh is 0.6.
However, look at the highest numbers on that list and you'll see nations like Qatar at 32.5, Kuwait at 22.0. Yes, Granted, they don't have huge populations so overall, they're not pumping out that much. However, Australia, America, Canada also are emitting >14 tons per capita. The vast majority of these people do not need to be emitting that much but they do so to fuel luxury, and their "standard of living" while telling the people of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China that they need to do better. It's pretty hypocritical.
The top 15% of the world needs to emiting much less. Not the bottom 40%.
Pakistan is an even more interesting example because currently a third of the nation is underwater (literally an inland sea has formed [3]) because of floods that were defintely far more exacerbated this year due to climate change. They're the ones suffering from it (along with good old goverments being incompetent and not planning enough) while they've not benefitted from the emissions in the slightest.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
2. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods#/media/Fi...
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see de-growth as an extreme option, in fact it is the only outcome possible in the long term, either in a planned manner, or through collapse. In terms of denialists, I am afraid that actually the majority of people are overwhelmed by the huge issues we are facing, and just think we should enjoy life and forget about any responsibility. I don't want to lose hope, but as things are now, I am afraid that we are…
What do we mean with de-growth here? Human world population? Energy-consumption per human? long-lasting-non-recyclable-waste per human? Mankind GDP? Wealth distribution discrepancy? On collapse, the only serious book I red was Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".
I mean mostly GDP (yes economists, I am looking at you), but, alas, all these dimensions are linked.
I guess that decoupling is possible to some extent. I don't want to lose the hope that we can live happy lives without destroying the planet (or ourselves), but we need a very bold strategy, and I haven't seen any yet.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#128Similar 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…
I petition that the most pertinent predictions from the 70s came with works such as 'Future shock': there is "too much change in too short a period of time" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock ) and the "small is beautiful" motto, which were inherited from a more generic analysis published by L. Kohr ~20 years before ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr#Philosophy )
In a few words: there is too much of everything (size, density, speed, frequency...): no human group can anymore understand the current state of affairs quickly and correctly enough to be able to predict and therefore to plan adequately.
In such a light the PLAN proposed by the authors may difficult to pursue.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> due to the switch to service and digital economy, in rich countries GDP growth has become decoupled from energy use for a few decades already. They just pushed pollution elsewhere, by outsourcing manufacturing.
That strengthens the effect, but no, the growth is decoupled even if you take into account the energy and pollution cost of the outsourced manufacturing. The same goods (and better goods) take less energy and pollution to produce than in 2000, and a lot of physical goods have been effectively replaced with features in digital devices; and the main part of GDP growth for developed countries does not involve any growth…
Do you have a current source on the decoupling claim accounting for outsourcing?
That's a good trend if true.
Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
#130I 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…
This is another issue witha clear age divide.
Younger generation is overwhelmingly aware of the problem, but our decisiojn makers have an average age of 70 or some such. Older voters hold more power too. Brexit was overwhelmingly voted for by older people.
The west is in crisis because the young peiple are getting shafted at every step, from the housing market to the environment.
I love my grandparents, but I would never put them in a position of power - they just aren't as sharp and switched on as they used to be
Edit: for people downvoting, look at how age of politicians has increased in US. Look at how politics has become more disfunctional. The change is real
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/congre...