Are the best years of our civilization still to come?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Pre-agricultural society and all the social stratification nonsense, but far enough into hunter-gather society that there weren't really animals hunting us. Sure you'd probably be dead by 30, but those 30 years might be really fun.

Oh gods let's not make this into a state of nature debate.

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

If the future's not off limits, I'm rolling the dice even more and heading to the year 20,000. Let me enjoy the heights of the Dark Age of Technology, before the warp storms and Chaos rising and grimdark fascism.

Well, the professor did build that forward-only time machine.

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Not much has changed, but they live underwater.

So...more Zoidberg?  I'm in.

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I was more thinking Thanos. Give it a few more decades and his idea becomes ever more appealing.

I don't really think of what Thanos did as "human sacrifice."  I mean, technically sure it is, but he took all the fun out of it.

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Didn't take you as a young earther, tho.

Huh?

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

So...more Zoidberg?  I'm in.

Or possibly this:

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Very round way of saying, that the year 3.000 is not really suitable for human life, Earth was still in its early stages, with lots of volcanic activity. I assume you meant, the year 3.000 after its creation.

[Altherion]

On 8/30/2021 at 8:30 PM, felice said:

The problem is it's not just nonsense, it's actively destructive nonsense - for bitcoin, waste of energy on a staggering scale, and less importantly computer component shortages; for anti-vaxxers, promoting the continued spread of a virus that has been a major disruption to the entire world for the last couple of years.

Yes, a small fraction of the nonsense turns out to be actively destructive. This is unfortunate, but my point was that it is not new -- it has happened from time to time throughout recorded history.

On 8/31/2021 at 2:49 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What metrics are you using for civilization? How are you defining it?

I would go with the dictionary definition: "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached." Obviously, all of these are constantly changing a little bit at a time and it's not always immediately clear whether this is for the better (sometimes they change back or to something else altogether) so using them as exact metrics is difficult and it's a pretty fuzzy concept.

[JGP]

4 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Kinda related question I’d be interested in the answers to; you’re a soul floating around in timeless void, and you get to pick the year you’re born. No choice on nationality or wealth or anything else, you’ll be born a totally random baby on Earth. What year do you pick?

Despite the pessimism in the thread, I pick today. Right now.

Don’t threaten me with a good time, cause like…

Hellas, Ancient Greece.

[Isalie]

14 hours ago, Fez said:

I think there's at least an argument to be made that around 10,000 BC there was the highest average (mean) happiness among humans. Pre-agricultural society and all the social stratification nonsense, but far enough into hunter-gather society that there weren't really animals hunting us. Sure you'd probably be dead by 30, but those 30 years might be really fun.

The 30 years life expectancy is really skewed by child deaths though. If you made it through adolescence you could get really old even in those days.

Im honestly not sure what i would choose, but it would stand between being born today or some 10000 years ago.

[Rippounet]

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

It is not necessary (and not plausible) to reduce the standard of living. The only way out is to somehow do more with less which we are currently trying to do (see below for examples).

You don't necessarily need stagnation everywhere; it would be sufficient to do it in endeavors which are resource constrained.

I think our fundamental disagreement here is that I do not consider this to be a reduction in the standard of living at all. Very few people actively enjoy changing light bulbs or water heaters or microwave ovens or other large appliances. Even with phones and computers, the work to transfer to the new device is barely worth the improvement in quality nowadays. More people than not would be pleased if corporations gave up on planned obsolescence and everything lasted longer.

Depending on semantics/definitions, we agree far more than we disagree.

The feeling I get is that the crux of our disagreement is that you're reluctant to admit that we're talking about a paradigm shift here.
If corporations are forbidden to indulge in planned obsolescence -and other disastrous practices-, then the ideology that is currently dominant has already been vanquished. If all corporations are forced to put environmental concerns ahead of profits, then our "civilization" is in fact over, and we've moved to something else. From where I'm sitting, there's just no way our daily life would be the same if we took the global environmental crisis seriously.
We agree that the "standard of living" would be at least equivalent though -possibly even higher.

Again, semantics. Transitioning, to my eyes, means going beyond the ideas that have been dominant for about 200 years. I'm tempted to say it'd be "post-capitalism," but I guess it's more consensual to say it'd at least be "post-neo-liberalism."

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is simply not true. If we really, really wanted to, we could power the whole world (except maybe airplanes) with energy not derived from fossil fuels in about a decade and this would not even require any new technology. All that needs to happen is the construction of lots and lots of nuclear reactors -- the kind that have already been producing 20% of the electricity in the US and much more than that in France, Sweden and elsewhere for decades. The reason this will never happen is not physics, but economics, bureaucracy and public opinion.

Agree with the bolded - though I'd bring it back to ideology (i.e. neo-liberal ideology).

Disagree with the beginning though. Building a massive amount of nuclear plants would be a good thing in my book - it's part of the solution. But that wouldn't "solve" climate change. At this point it would only mitigate its effects in the future (i.e. it would allow us to remain with an average of about +2°C).
Climate change is happening anyway, so "solving" it requires far more than making our energy production "green." Overall energy consumption has to be reduced, infrastructure has to be modified, carbon capture technologies have to be developed... etc. And all this must be done in a way that is itself "green," while taking into account the fact that the climate is now going to be unstable for the foreseeable future.
My point is, you need to adress the ideological aspect first. Within our current socio-economic system, climate change is pretty much impossible to "solve." Insisting on technology obfuscates the true nature of the problem.

And then, as I said, climate change is only one aspect of this larger problem. Bottom line is, we overexploit the planet in almost every conceivable way. We take too much raw materials for instance, we overfish, we harm the soils... etc. If one tries to think of climate change as a purely technical problem, then one does not adress the root causes. What I mean is that even if you build a bazillion nuclear reactors, humanity will still face many challenges due to climate change itself on the one hand (rising sea levels, numerous localized droughts, stronger storms and hurricanes... etc), and to the way of life of wealthy people/developed countries on the other (growing scarcity of raw materials, issues with food production, lack of drinking water, widespread pollution, ocean acidification... etc).

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

I think this "all about energy" approach is a valid and useful way to think about this issue, but I disagree that there is no hope of sustaining our lifestyle (with the caveat from two paragraphs above that I do not view planned obsolescence as an integral part of this lifestyle).

We'd have to see how we both define "our lifestyle."

For instance, I don't think we can keep eating as much meat as we do now throughout the West. Everyone would at least be flexitarian, with a fair amount of vegetarians and vegans.
Would that count as a change in lifestyle? I'm tempted to say yes, because gorging ourselves on meat is a significant aspect of our  cultures: Americans love BBQs and French cuisine relies on meat as the central element. Transitioning would thus impact our daily cultural practices. OTOH, since meat wouldn't disappear (we'd still have BBQs and giant family meals, especially on holidays), one could argue that the lifestyle hasn't changed.

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is why I said that there is a race here between the climate crisis and technology. There is a long list of new ideas which either reduce energy or generate it more cleanly and it's a question of whether we can get the best of them implemented quickly enough. It's true that much of the damage has already been done, but it is manifestly not civilization-ending (not yet anyways).

I think your perspective would be valid if we were actively transitioning right now. But there's just too many measures we keep delaying.
For instance, planned obsolescence should already be illegal. The longer it remains legal now, and the more -purely material- comforts we lose in the near-future (around 2040 I'd guess).
 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Depending on semantics/definitions, we agree far more than we disagree.

The feeling I get is that the crux of our disagreement is that you're reluctant to admit that we're talking about a paradigm shift here.
If corporations are forbidden to indulge in planned obsolescence -and other disastrous practices-, then the ideology that is currently dominant has already been vanquished. If all corporations are forced to put environmental concerns ahead of profits, then our "civilization" is in fact over, and we've moved to something else. From where I'm sitting, there's just no way our daily life would be the same if we took the global environmental crisis seriously.
We agree that the "standard of living" would be at least equivalent though -possibly even higher.

Again, semantics. Transitioning, to my eyes, means going beyond the ideas that have been dominant for about 200 years. I'm tempted to say it'd be "post-capitalism," but I guess it's more consensual to say it'd at least be "post-neo-liberalism."

I think we do agree far more than we disagree. The part I don't think is so clear is that getting rid of planned obsolescence and the like would change our daily lives. The thing is, most of the time it's neither difficult nor expensive to make a given item last longer -- it's a deliberate choice to limit the lifetime (whence the "planned"). I don't think there would be a dramatic increase in cost for the eco-friendly version; for most things, it would be under 10%. Of course, there would still be a paradigm shift in that we would need a whole lot less stuff and the corporations that deal in physically manufactured goods would somehow have to adapt to that, but I don't think this would make such a dramatic difference.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Disagree with the beginning though. Building a massive amount of nuclear plants would be a good thing in my book - it's part of the solution. But that wouldn't "solve" climate change. At this point it would only mitigate its effects in the future (i.e. it would allow us to remain with an average of about +2°C).

If it really is all about energy though, providing enough power would go most of the way towards solving the problem. It's true that one would still need various associated technologies like electric cars and more efficient carbon capture mechanisms, but the main problem is simply that we do not know how to generate the massive amount of energy we need in a carbon-neutral way. People are working on it though.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

My point is, you need to adress the ideological aspect first. Within our current socio-economic system, climate change is pretty much impossible to "solve." Insisting on technology obfuscates the true nature of the problem.

I think the technological route is plausible. It is by no means a sure thing, but the problem is well defined and there are many potential solutions in various stages of progress. On the other hand, the ideological aspect is hard to change and it's not actually clear what the successor ideology should be. There are a few alternatives around today with the most competitive one by far being the Chinese system, but none of them are particularly eco-friendly.

In other words, I agree with you that our current ideology is not ideal for dealing with the climate crisis, but I do not see a plausible replacement on that front or a way to get there. Thus, the technological solution will most likely come first.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

For instance, I don't think we can keep eating as much meat as we do now throughout the West. Everyone would at least be flexitarian, with a fair amount of vegetarians and vegans.
Would that count as a change in lifestyle?

I mostly did this (I eat fish, dairy and eggs at home, but meat only when I get together with relatives that still eat it) and I would say that yes, it does... but a fairly small one and getting smaller as the pseudo-meat becomes more easily available and more meat-like.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think your perspective would be valid if we were actively transitioning right now. But there's just too many measures we keep delaying.
For instance, planned obsolescence should already be illegal. The longer it remains legal now, and the more -purely material- comforts we lose in the near-future (around 2040 I'd guess).

This is certainly possible. We are actively transitioning right now -- hence the LED light bulbs and partly or fully electric cars and the like -- but we're certainly not doing it very quickly and it's true that if we kept going at the current pace, we'd never get anywhere close to even stopping the addition of carbon dioxide on a relevant time scale. However, just as there are tipping points in nature, there are also tipping points in human society so it's also possible that once the people in charge agree that this must be done, things will move dramatically faster. That's why I think of it as a race.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

If it really is all about energy though, providing enough power would go most of the way towards solving the problem. It's true that one would still need various associated technologies like electric cars and more efficient carbon capture mechanisms, but the main problem is simply that we do not know how to generate the massive amount of energy we need in a carbon-neutral way. People are working on it though.

See, this is one of the reasons that this bullshit always fails.

Okay, let's assume for a thought experiment that we have unlimited clean power. That doesn't solve the following:

- planes

- sea level rise

- drought

- fire

- war (and how war machines are built on fast energy)

Causing less CO2 emissions is a big deal, but you cannot do it on only one side. Whole industries and ways of doing things are going to need to massively change in order for this to work. Fast travel is a great example of this - we have an entire section of the economy devoted to getting people around quickly on systems that do not work well remotely with low-energy output systems. Changing the face of overnight transportation, travel, tourism - these do require more than just a technological invention, because as said above - the solution is essentially to break the laws of physics if you want to do it a clean way as it stands. Imagine if it took a week to travel to a tourist destination instead of 6 hours - what does that do for the concept of vacation time? Of work in general? 

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

In other words, I agree with you that our current ideology is not ideal for dealing with the climate crisis, but I do not see a plausible replacement on that front or a way to get there. Thus, the technological solution will most likely come first.

Counterpoint: the ideological solution will come first because its the one that will almost certainly be implemented by the politicians in charge, and can be done so far more easily. It's a lot easier to demand that you put up walls and say fuck you to immigrants and other nations than it is to fund a moonshot that will save the planet, and people will reward the former a lot more than the latter. 

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

This is certainly possible. We are actively transitioning right now -- hence the LED light bulbs and partly or fully electric cars and the like -- but we're certainly not doing it very quickly and it's true that if we kept going at the current pace, we'd never get anywhere close to even stopping the addition of carbon dioxide on a relevant time scale. However, just as there are tipping points in nature, there are also tipping points in human society so it's also possible that once the people in charge agree that this must be done, things will move dramatically faster. That's why I think of it as a race.

Those tipping points happened in the past largely because of things that would be better for people, not worse - at least in some major way. And better for the individual person. IE, a person could see how a phone benefitted them, or a car, or light, so there was a massive drive for the infrastructure and basis for them. Tell people to cut back? Hah. When that happens there are riots, there are entire governmental overthrowing, there is massive change politically first, then maybe technologically. The reference for this would be every event in human history. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

I think we do agree far more than we disagree. The part I don't think is so clear is that getting rid of planned obsolescence and the like would change our daily lives. The thing is, most of the time it's neither difficult nor expensive to make a given item last longer -- it's a deliberate choice to limit the lifetime (whence the "planned"). I don't think there would be a dramatic increase in cost for the eco-friendly version; for most things, it would be under 10%. Of course, there would still be a paradigm shift in that we would need a whole lot less stuff and the corporations that deal in physically manufactured goods would somehow have to adapt to that, but I don't think this would make such a dramatic difference.

I believe you underestimate the magnitude of the paradigm shift here.

Ending planned obsolescence (broadly defined) means a combination of three things:
- Corporations in many sectors will barely make a profit (footnote here: this means the financial sector pulling out of them at least).
- There will be fewer large for-profit corporations in these sectors (small local ones may still be profitable though -especially if they offer repair & recycling services).
- There will be fewer jobs overall. This one isn't even only linked to less production  - it's happening anyway.
The combination of these three things means a different society, with very different priorities and rules/laws.
I'd say the end of planned obsolescence alone means UBI is required - there aren't enough jobs for humans anymore.
And then you add to that the end of all wasteful and polluting activities... Well, that's a lot of jobs lost.

I'm not sure how to define it, but it's something like "the end of material-related labor." A small percentage of humans would still be managing "essential" production & services, but most humans would be engaged in some form of immaterial pursuit: services to other humans, designing new products (that can be produced with the existing factories/gear), and entertainment. We've already started going in that direction, but the current crisis means speeding down that road full throttle asap.
That's why I see this as leading to a different "civilization."
 

1 hour ago, Kaligator said:

And better for the individual person. IE, a person could see how a phone benefitted them, or a car, or light, so there was a massive drive for the infrastructure and basis for them. Tell people to cut back? Hah. When that happens there are riots, there are entire governmental overthrowing, there is massive change politically first, then maybe technologically. The reference for this would be every event in human history. 

I don't think there's an exact precedent for what we're about to face though. Past historical events have been about vital resources (i.e. food and water) and forms of oppression. The big idea here would be not to reach that point, precisely because we know how ugly it would get. Hence why we want the shift to happen sooner than later.
Of course, giving up SUVs and the possibility of eating hamburgers every day may cause riots (or some other form of violence) in the US, because the dominant ideology there is extreme individualism. I'd say that, nonetheless, we're very close to the point where entire populations are ready to cut back on some things as long as the implementation isn't unfair. Many of us are already becoming environmentally-conscious of our own free will. Many restrictions and regulations can be accepted if they make sense and are fair.

I'd simply look at how European populations have accepted restrictions because of Covid. There have been some demonstrations here and there, yes, but no riots, barely any violence, and, all in all, widespread acceptance that everyone had to play their part.
I believe Asian populations have been even more disciplined.
The US is the outlier here, and it still has over half of its adult population vaccinated.

[rotting sea cow]

17 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I believe you underestimate the magnitude of the paradigm shift here.

Ending planned obsolescence (broadly defined) means a combination of three things:
- Corporations in many sectors will barely make a profit (footnote here: this means the financial sector pulling out of them at least).
- There will be fewer large for-profit corporations in these sectors (small local ones may still be profitable though -especially if they offer repair & recycling services).
- There will be fewer jobs overall. This one isn't even only linked to less production  - it's happening anyway.
The combination of these three things means a different society, with very different priorities and rules/laws.
I'd say the end of planned obsolescence alone means UBI is required - there aren't enough jobs for humans anymore.
And then you add to that the end of all wasteful and polluting activities... Well, that's a lot of jobs lost.

Just a short comment here. What you are describing is very focused on the situation in developed countries, while a lot of common material goods (like a refrigerator) are not readily available for a good fraction of the world population. There is still a huge market for manufactured goods if we can find a way to increase these people's incomes.

[Rippounet]

52 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Just a short comment here. What you are describing is very focused on the situation in developed countries, while a lot of common material goods (like a refrigerator) are not readily available for a good fraction of the world population. There is still a huge market for manufactured goods if we can find a way to increase these people's incomes.

I'm kinda assuming that if we take climate change seriously enough to end planned obscolescence, there would also be strict regulations/limits on international commerce. It's obvious to me that localized industrial production is a way to reduce the global carbon footprint.
It's guess it's still possible for the factories to be owned by mega-corps, but that would still mean fewer jobs in developed countries.
I mean, whichever way we look at it, there's not going to be that many jobs in the near-future.

[Arakan]

@Rippounet do you agree that we have to do a major shift in mindset as well? Forget CO2 taxes, they are inherently unjust. The rich won’t care, the poor will be priced out. We need a CO2 budget. Same for everyone. That would be fair and just. 

I am sick of the Leo di Caprios of this would preaching fight against climate change and traveling in their privat jets. 

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Arakan said:

@Rippounet do you agree that we have to do a major shift in mindset as well? Forget CO2 taxes, they are inherently unjust. The rich won’t care, the poor will be priced out. We need a CO2 budget. Same for everyone. That would be fair and just. 

I am sick of the Leo di Caprios of this would preaching fight against climate change and traveling in their privat jets. 

The DiCaprio hypocrisy is such an irrelevant nothing-burger in the grand scheme. 

Ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

24.2% of emissions are energy use by industry (iron / steel / chemical production, mining, manufacturing, etc.)

18.4% Agriculture/Forestry/Land Use

17.5% Energy use in buildings

16.2% Transport (mostly road transport -- about 1.5% passenger aviation - I'm sure private planes are 0.1% of that)

7.8% unallocated fuel consumption and another 5.8% from fugitive emissions from oil, gas, and coal

So, who gives a shit about celebrity waste? It's a drop in the bucket. Industry is what is killing the planet. Truly, who gives a shit about celebrities anyway -- we are getting to where we need more AVALANCHE than pretty words.

[Arakan]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

The DiCaprio hypocrisy is such an irrelevant nothing-burger in the grand scheme. 

Ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

24.2% of emissions are energy use by industry (iron / steel / chemical production, mining, manufacturing, etc.)

18.4% Agriculture/Forestry/Land Use

17.5% Energy use in buildings

16.2% Transport (mostly road transport -- about 1.5% passenger aviation - I'm sure private planes are 0.1% of that)

7.8% unallocated fuel consumption and another 5.8% from fugitive emissions from oil, gas, and coal

So, who gives a shit about celebrity waste? It's a drop in the bucket. Industry is what is killing the planet. Truly, who gives a shit about celebrities anyway -- we are getting to where we need more AVALANCHE than pretty words.

It’s not about that. I wrote what it’s about. I will never support CO2 taxes. They fuck the poor, and those who have the money might complain but still can afford it while the poor are priced out. This is the point. 

And this is what many Greens don’t get because they themselves are from a different socio-economic background. The answer cannot be to make everything just most more expensive. It will just hurt the weakest. I would support a general CO2 budget. That is fair and just. 

 

 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

It’s not about that. I wrote what it’s about. I will never support CO2 taxes. They fuck the poor, and those who have the money might complain but still can afford it while the poor are priced out. This is the point. 

And this is what many Greens don’t get because they themselves are from a different socio-economic background. The answer cannot be to make everything just most more expensive. It will just hurt the weakest. I would support a general CO2 budget. That is fair and just. 

You said that. Then you complained about DiCaprio for some unknown reason which I responded to -- keep your eyes on the prize. Your response suggests that you didn't say what you plainly said and I quoted.

Would love to hear your ideas for a carbon budget and how to get world powers behind it. We can't even agree, globally, on what emissions actually are by country -- so, not a great start. This is a classic example of the 'right and just' solution being a complete non-starter on even beginning the conversation let alone agreement on a solution. Basically as useful as DiCaprio.

[Larry of the Lawn]

There was plenty of room, Rose!

[Arakan]

@Week World wide CO2 Emissions by air traffic in 2019 was 2.8%. You say it’s nothing I say it’s more than the whole of Germany. 

My Di Caprio sentence was not to literally focus on private air traffic. It’s an example of fucking hypocrisy. You want change? Start with not making exceptions! Especially those with global reach should act as role model for others. Preaching water and drinking wine is what got us here.  

[Week]

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

@Week World wide CO2 Emissions by air traffic in 2019 was 2.8%. You say it’s nothing I say it’s more than the whole of Germany. 

My Di Caprio sentence was not to literally focus on private air traffic. It’s an example of fucking hypocrisy. You want change? Start with not making exceptions! Especially those with global reach should act as role model for others. Preaching water and drinking wine is what got us here.  

Where did I say 2.8%? Anyway, you go ahead screaming at DiCaprio, Greta, LeBron, clouds, and whomever else you want to. Best of luck with that.

[Arakan]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

Where did I say 2.8%? Anyway, you go ahead screaming at DiCaprio, Greta, LeBron, clouds, and whomever else you want to. Best of luck with that.

you Said 1.5%. Its a bit more, you know . 

Sure. And you make exceptions for anyone you like. Whatever. Don’t quote me again and everything is fine.