Jump to content

Are the best years of our civilization still to come?


Altherion

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Arakan said:

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. 

So, you arbitrarily changed the number from a source I referenced because you ... know better? It fit your narrative better? (It doesn't) Without mentioning that you did that, why, or by what logic. Poor form, dude.

We probably agree more than not if you'd care to get out of your own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 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.

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."

I disagree. I think you are overestimate the magnitude of the change as well as underestimating the extent to which it has already happened. Regarding your points:

- There are already many sectors where corporations barely make a profit (this is possible because the associated risk is extremely low). Shifting more companies into this region is not a trivial thing, but it does not redefine the rules of the game. Regarding the financial sector pulling out: this has already happened to a considerable degree. Take a look at, for example, the current makeup of the S&P 500 and you will see that its 10 largest constituents are (without counting Alphabet/Google twice): Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway, Nvidia, JP Morgan Chase and Johnson & Johnson. These are not traditional manufacturing companies -- almost all of them sell services at the very least in addition to the physical goods. The main exception is Tesla which is, of course, the poster child of the transition. Long story short: the markets have already adapted.

- The large corporations will go anywhere there is economy of scale. I do not see why recycling and repair are exempt.

- Yes, there will be fewer jobs, but again, that transition is already on the way and has many causes.

Regarding the end of material-related labor: I do not see this as the end of our civilization, but as the logical continuation of it. This was where early science fiction promised we were going; if we get it right, it will be the "better world" that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

So, you arbitrarily changed the number from a source I referenced because you ... know better? It fit your narrative better? (It doesn't) Without mentioning that you did that, why, or by what logic. Poor form, dude.

We probably agree more than not if you'd care to get out of your own way.

2.8% is the actual figure for 2019. global share of air traffic on global emissions. Let’s leave it at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arakan said:

2.8% is the actual figure for 2019. global share of air traffic on global emissions. Let’s leave it at that. 

 

Can we leave it at you at least providing a source for your claim? Like the both of you could be right- Week's link uses data from 2016, you're claiming 2019- but it's not good argument to throw out numbers without showing where you got them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’d say far after that, since electronic dance music (EDM) didn’t get serious until 2008, and at that point, I’d been listening to EDM for at least 6 years.

Okay, I can see that logic. The lord of the rings films came out in 2001-2003. Okay, so we definitely need to push it to 2005ish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2021 at 9:39 AM, 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?

Today, one thousand years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, Altherion said:

I disagree. I think you are overestimate the magnitude of the change as well as underestimating the extent to which it has already happened.

It's always a possibility (me being wrong).
But perhaps we have different definitions for "civilization" or "materialism." I think it's quite difficult to deny that Western culture is very materialistic.

On 9/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, Altherion said:

- There are already many sectors where corporations barely make a profit (this is possible because the associated risk is extremely low). Shifting more companies into this region is not a trivial thing, but it does not redefine the rules of the game. Regarding the financial sector pulling out: this has already happened to a considerable degree. Take a look at, for example, the current makeup of the S&P 500 and you will see that its 10 largest constituents are (without counting Alphabet/Google twice): Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Berkshire Hathaway, Nvidia, JP Morgan Chase and Johnson & Johnson. These are not traditional manufacturing companies -- almost all of them sell services at the very least in addition to the physical goods. The main exception is Tesla which is, of course, the poster child of the transition. Long story short: the markets have already adapted.

The fact that Amazon stock values are high doesn't mean Ford no longer has shareholders.

On 9/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, Altherion said:

- The large corporations will go anywhere there is economy of scale. I do not see why recycling and repair are exempt.

This is not what I wrote, and is almost a question in itself.

On 9/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, Altherion said:

Regarding the end of material-related labor: I do not see this as the end of our civilization, but as the logical continuation of it.

I can't agree here.

It's quite subjective, on some level. Radical change seldom happens overnight, so it's always possible to see continuity. In a way, it's the future generations that make the call as to what constitutes a crisis or a break ; it's also about whether in the far future humans, will seek to stress the differences between themselves and us.
I fear that future generations will not look kindly on us, but I can also imagine the break not being that clear. Consumerism could join other practices of our species like mass incarceration and slavery that people generally don't want to defend. Maybe in the far future, two kids will have a conversation ending with "Can you believe that some of them had, like, fourty pairs of shoes?" and shake their heads.

On 9/3/2021 at 7:21 PM, Altherion said:

This was where early science fiction promised we were going; if we get it right, it will be the "better world" that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "early," but right now we're not getting it right at all, and science-fiction does give us clues about what happens in that case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/5/2021 at 4:47 PM, Rippounet said:

The fact that Amazon stock values are high doesn't mean Ford no longer has shareholders.

This is true, but my point was that investors have already reduced their investment in traditional manufacturers and this is a good example. As I write this, Ford's market capitalization is around $51B while Amazon's is $1.8T (i.e. more than 35 times that of Ford).

On 9/5/2021 at 4:47 PM, Rippounet said:

It's quite subjective, on some level. Radical change seldom happens overnight, so it's always possible to see continuity. In a way, it's the future generations that make the call as to what constitutes a crisis or a break ; it's also about whether in the far future humans, will seek to stress the differences between themselves and us.
I fear that future generations will not look kindly on us, but I can also imagine the break not being that clear. Consumerism could join other practices of our species like mass incarceration and slavery that people generally don't want to defend. Maybe in the far future, two kids will have a conversation ending with "Can you believe that some of them had, like, fourty pairs of shoes?" and shake their heads.

I'm not too worried about future generations not holding us in high esteem or stressing the differences between themselves and us -- that would indicate that we've succeeded. Most modern civilizations do this to their predecessors precisely because we live in a time of what these predecessors regarded as miracles. The worrisome outcome is the other one, where we are regarded as a peak for a long time afterwards.

On 9/5/2021 at 4:47 PM, Rippounet said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "early," but right now we're not getting it right at all, and science-fiction does give us clues about what happens in that case.

I mean the original Star Trek and Soviet science fiction of the same era. And yes, we're currently not getting it right, but it's still too soon to draw any conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

 And yes, we're currently not getting it right, but it's still too soon to draw any conclusions.

Should we draw the conclusions when most of Bangladesh is wiped off the map and tens of millions of refugees seek passage to the West? Should we draw the conclusions when most of New York is under water? Should we draw the conclusions when our crops fail and food becomes scarce? Or when we have lost the bees, the fish, and almost all animals that are not domesticated or behind bars? When half the globe has become hostile environment for humans?

We've faced this problem for decades and the main thing we've come up with is greenwashing. Sure, we've also developed technology that could help, but we've yet to see any plans for large-scale implementation that would actually make things better. We keep waiting for some magical solution coming out of our sacred market or something.

There's a very simple and unassailable conclusion here: the current socio-economic system has failed. The current ideology has failed. The current elite caste has failed. We had a shot at preventing climate change, and we didn't take it. Now, we're talking about mitigating its effects (limiting it to +1,5°C or +2°C).
And we're also screwing that up.

It's not too soon to draw conclusions, it's already too late. Now is coming the time for very hard decisions.

 

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

I'm not too worried about future generations not holding us in high esteem or stressing the differences between themselves and us -- that would indicate that we've succeeded. Most modern civilizations do this to their predecessors precisely because we live in a time of what these predecessors regarded as miracles. The worrisome outcome is the other one, where we are regarded as a peak for a long time afterwards.

I mean the original Star Trek and Soviet science fiction of the same era. And yes, we're currently not getting it right, but it's still too soon to draw any conclusions.

Have you forgotten that the Star Trek utopia was built on the ruins of human civilization?

"We" will not succeed, humanity might. You and I belong to the generations that have already failed, and are now counting on the next ones to make the hard choices and sacrifices that we couldn't make.

 

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

This is true, but my point was that investors have already reduced their investment in traditional manufacturers and this is a good example.

Reduced comparatively, not pulled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In somewhat more optimistic news.

Netherlands propose a plan to reduce livestock. They'd force farmers to sell up land and reduce their numbers of animals. Which brings us back to what I said earlier, reduction in living standards. Dairy and meat as in the (conventional) farming sector mass products. Farmers can (some barely) get by producing it in masses. So that would in all likelihood mean, that prices for animal products would go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

There's a very simple and unassailable conclusion here: the current socio-economic system has failed. The current ideology has failed. The current elite caste has failed. We had a shot at preventing climate change, and we didn't take it. Now, we're talking about mitigating its effects (limiting it to +1,5°C or +2°C).

And we're also screwing that up.

Definitely past tense, there.

Screwed. Fucked, as in, unable to unfuck.

Limiting to 1.5 or even 2 isn't within the realm of possibility at this point as far as I've* been able to determine.

 

 

*I'm not a scientist or student of climatology     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of which, this study is from yesterday:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8

Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world

Nature volume 597pages 230–234 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement pledged to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C relative to pre-industrial times1. However, fossil fuels continue to dominate the global energy system and a sharp decline in their use must be realized to keep the temperature increase below 1.5 °C (refs. 2,3,4,5,6,7). Here we use a global energy systems model8 to assess the amount of fossil fuels that would need to be left in the ground, regionally and globally, to allow for a 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. By 2050, we find that nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90 per cent of coal must remain unextracted to keep within a 1.5 °C carbon budget. This is a large increase in the unextractable estimates for a 2 °C carbon budget9, particularly for oil, for which an additional 25 per cent of reserves must remain unextracted. Furthermore, we estimate that oil and gas production must decline globally by 3 per cent each year until 2050. This implies that most regions must reach peak production now or during the next decade, rendering many operational and planned fossil fuel projects unviable. We probably present an underestimate of the production changes required, because a greater than 50 per cent probability of limiting warming to 1.5 °C requires more carbon to stay in the ground and because of uncertainties around the timely deployment of negative emission technologies at scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...