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

Post by FeepingCreature » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:28 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #46

adastra22 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limits which are millions, billions, or trillions of times beyond current capacities. For the moment, thermodynamic limits don't apply.

Exponentials can get away from you a lot faster than you might expect. For instance if we sustained a 1% annual population growth for another 13000 years the total volume of all living people would be more than the total volume of all the space within 13000 light years of Earth. So unless we get faster than light travel or we greatly reduce the amount of space into which you can physically cram a living human we are…

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:33 AM UTC

ericmcer wrote: post #18

giantg2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retirement for the masses is a relatively new, rich invention. It seems likely ar some point we will revert back to working until we become unable to work.

Yeh the whole concept of putting in 20-30 years on the police force and then retiring with a 70% pension for the rest of your life seems… nuts.

Post by adrianN » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:39 AM UTC

franciscop wrote: post #107

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…

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…

Post by adrianN » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:42 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #124

pharmakom wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by MrPatan » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:50 AM UTC

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…