41–50 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give you an idea, if you have bought a new laptop and phone, that's around another 3000kWh already.
I have 10 years old pc and bought new phone after 3 years. So 3000+3000/10+3000/3=4300 +products, so it will be 5-6k in total. Still not much.
Give up population growth. This really is key but too often overlooked.
Most of the "western world" already has barely growing or declining populations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline What you are proposing is thus an imperialist dictate on African and Asian countries, which is an obvious no go. Instead you should advocate for improved standards of living and flourishing economies in all these countries, which is strongly correlated with stabilizing population levels.
It is quite irrelevant which parts of the world have a growing population and which have not. What's important is the global population.
Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There certainly are ways to live there. Granted, it needs some colonization effort - still easier than colonizing Mars, and actually producing some technologies for that.
The past 200 years is the era of energy-intensive technological innovation. What is the evidence that the technology innovation pattern we've experienced so far can shift into ultra-low energy mode at scale? In inhospitable environments to boot. PS. Mars colonization is folly.
You should do both.
Edit: Do people who downvote me disagree that Capitalism necessitates growth to function? Or do they disagree that we should get rid of it?
Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…
While that is all true, at least to me it sounds like the old explanation of why Communism failed - "It was indeed superior, but all the world had to agree so for it to work". Say one country develops this utopia where everyone doesn't have to compete to survive, either companies or individuals. Its neighbour though remains with the old Capitalist model. In a generation or two the struggling capitalist country could…
Give up population growth. This really is key but too often overlooked.
Africa, with 1.+2 billion inhabitants, has a tiny carbon footprint compared to the US (which as less than 1/3 of Africa's population).
Source: https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf...
It is exactly the same on the micro level.
Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…
Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…
