Earth Overshoot Day(overshootday.org)
overshootday.org
Earth Overshoot Day
https://www.overshootday.org/
176 comments
> neither have we met with any sort of defeat.
Defeat against whom? Is human race at war with someone?
Earth overshoot day isn't about survival of human race, it's about human being in balance with Earth. Countless species are extinct because of us. Is this victory?
Defeat against whom? Is human race at war with someone?
Earth overshoot day isn't about survival of human race, it's about human being in balance with Earth. Countless species are extinct because of us. Is this victory?
The very act of living is a war against entropy. It wants our motion to cease.
All the other animals want our food. Many of them want our flesh. Plant viruses destroy our crops. Locusts will starve human children to death. We are absolutely at war.
A trillion parasites want our blood: hookworms, ticks, mosquitoes, you name it.
We destroyed smallpox for ourselves, but we also eradicated rinderpest to the benefit of a great many large animals (deer, giraffes, goats, cows, etc). We never started a Save the Hookworm campaign for good reason. We will wipe those fuckers out eventually.
We don't even have to worry about our children being eaten by wolves in most forests now... because we killed most of the wolves. A fairy tale ending.
So yeah, we're at war and always will be. Let's kill HIV next.
All the other animals want our food. Many of them want our flesh. Plant viruses destroy our crops. Locusts will starve human children to death. We are absolutely at war.
A trillion parasites want our blood: hookworms, ticks, mosquitoes, you name it.
We destroyed smallpox for ourselves, but we also eradicated rinderpest to the benefit of a great many large animals (deer, giraffes, goats, cows, etc). We never started a Save the Hookworm campaign for good reason. We will wipe those fuckers out eventually.
We don't even have to worry about our children being eaten by wolves in most forests now... because we killed most of the wolves. A fairy tale ending.
So yeah, we're at war and always will be. Let's kill HIV next.
Mosquitoes are among the most prolific pollinators and many ecosystems depend on them. Wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone because elk populations grew so large that they unbalanced the local ecosystem (overgrazing).
Ecosystems are not "at war" with us. Parts of it are beneficial to us, parts of it are not. We cannot simply exterminate the parts we don't like because they are all intertwined. Of course, it doesn't mean that we should breed hookworms within us and spread HIV for the sake of it, but treating it as a war is a bit ignorant of how ecosystems work.
Ecosystems are not "at war" with us. Parts of it are beneficial to us, parts of it are not. We cannot simply exterminate the parts we don't like because they are all intertwined. Of course, it doesn't mean that we should breed hookworms within us and spread HIV for the sake of it, but treating it as a war is a bit ignorant of how ecosystems work.
We were naked, starving hunter-gatherers once. Hyenas preyed on us. We struggled to find wild plants and animals to eat to survive.
The ecosystem could support only a few of us, only so many food-plants could grow in such and such an area.
Then, we learned to grow crops.
Then, we learned to control and even eradicate pests to our crops.
We bred the plants and animals to suit our needs and wants, to make not just more food but tastier food.
We can, we have, and we will continue to transcend "the ecosystem" when it suits us. We will bend it not just to our needs, but to our desires. We will have dominion over it, and we will have delicious sweet corn on the cob instead of bitter grass seed, and we won't share it with the locusts and crop viruses.
The ecosystem could support only a few of us, only so many food-plants could grow in such and such an area.
Then, we learned to grow crops.
Then, we learned to control and even eradicate pests to our crops.
We bred the plants and animals to suit our needs and wants, to make not just more food but tastier food.
We can, we have, and we will continue to transcend "the ecosystem" when it suits us. We will bend it not just to our needs, but to our desires. We will have dominion over it, and we will have delicious sweet corn on the cob instead of bitter grass seed, and we won't share it with the locusts and crop viruses.
Can we transcend the ecosystem ad infinitum?
> We were naked, starving hunter-gatherers once. Hyenas preyed on us. We struggled to find wild plants and animals to eat to survive.
Until we killed all mammoths and almost all of megafauna.
> The ecosystem could support only a few of us, only so many food-plants could grow in such and such an area. > Then, we learned to grow crops.
And burned out large swaths of land for grazing land, maybe created the deserts of today with fire, deforestation & overgrazing.
What happens when we cut down the last tree standing and plant the last piece of land with corn? We already have more land for meat/dairy production, than we have forests? [0]
> Then, we learned to control and even eradicate pests to our crops.
What happens when we kill the last 20% remaining bugs remaining in the world? How many more percent can we exterminate with our "control" of its population before some critical processes start failing? [1]
> we will continue to transcend "the ecosystem" when it suits us. We will bend it not just to our needs, but to our desires. We will have dominion over it, and we will have delicious sweet corn on the cob instead of bitter grass seed, and we won't share it with the locusts and crop viruses
What happens when we fish out beyond the critical mass of fish out of oceans, that only thing living there will be jellyfish (90% of sharks already gone because of by-kill and overfishing) [2]
How many wild animals can we replace with farm animals until we throw the nature out of balance too much (98% of biomass to 4% in biomass in last 100 years)? [3]
How many forests can we cut down until it rains only in coastal areas, thus turning the continents into deserts? [4]
Welcome to the anthropocene [5], current geological epoch dating from the commencement of significant human impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, anthropogenic climate change.
We already have our dominion over nature. But we don't handle that responsibility well.
And as you're the one talking about dominion, I have to point you to the [6]. Enjoy (engorge of) our superiority.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-g... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy [3] https://xkcd.com/1338/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKL40aBg-7E [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene [6] https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
> We were naked, starving hunter-gatherers once. Hyenas preyed on us. We struggled to find wild plants and animals to eat to survive.
Until we killed all mammoths and almost all of megafauna.
> The ecosystem could support only a few of us, only so many food-plants could grow in such and such an area. > Then, we learned to grow crops.
And burned out large swaths of land for grazing land, maybe created the deserts of today with fire, deforestation & overgrazing.
What happens when we cut down the last tree standing and plant the last piece of land with corn? We already have more land for meat/dairy production, than we have forests? [0]
> Then, we learned to control and even eradicate pests to our crops.
What happens when we kill the last 20% remaining bugs remaining in the world? How many more percent can we exterminate with our "control" of its population before some critical processes start failing? [1]
> we will continue to transcend "the ecosystem" when it suits us. We will bend it not just to our needs, but to our desires. We will have dominion over it, and we will have delicious sweet corn on the cob instead of bitter grass seed, and we won't share it with the locusts and crop viruses
What happens when we fish out beyond the critical mass of fish out of oceans, that only thing living there will be jellyfish (90% of sharks already gone because of by-kill and overfishing) [2]
How many wild animals can we replace with farm animals until we throw the nature out of balance too much (98% of biomass to 4% in biomass in last 100 years)? [3]
How many forests can we cut down until it rains only in coastal areas, thus turning the continents into deserts? [4]
Welcome to the anthropocene [5], current geological epoch dating from the commencement of significant human impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, anthropogenic climate change.
We already have our dominion over nature. But we don't handle that responsibility well.
And as you're the one talking about dominion, I have to point you to the [6]. Enjoy (engorge of) our superiority.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-g... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy [3] https://xkcd.com/1338/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKL40aBg-7E [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene [6] https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
Can we transcend the ecosystem in perpetuity? No one knows. Can we try? Yes. Should we? I think so.
We won't pave all the forests. We won't kill all the bugs. We won't net all the fish. Partially because of hysterical people such as yourself, which is sometimes useful, and partially because of cold-thinking people such as myself, which is also sometimes useful.
For example, more than a few countries protect more than a quarter of their land. You've heard of national parks, I'm sure. Where I live, 32% of the country is protected, and of course, not all unprotected land has been paved.
The fisheries, too, are protected to varying extents, and so we farm fish in sea-pens and ponds inland. There's work still to do to rebuild the fisheries to their former glory, but it's not being ignored and pillaged as you imply. The fisheries are doing well and improving here and elsewhere, and fish is relatively affordable for hungry human beings.
What we did 100 years ago, we have learned from, and stopped, we won't clearcut the rest of the old-growth, in fact we have replanted, not just pine, but also hardwoods, even some very slow growing ones, and we hope that in a millenium (it takes a while to grow), we will have more of our old forests back.
Not much furniture is made of hardwoods now, and not many farmers in the developed world slash and burn. We already have made great strides toward making our dominion stable; perhaps even a net benefit. Pine farms sequester a lot of carbon. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as the "undeveloped" world, only the "developing" world, so they'll get there eventually too. We can and should have it all.
I take it that you personally do not live in the wild forests alone and naked? You also partake of this glorious civilization we have built? Why? Because it's better. They cut down trees to build your house, and I think you'll agree that it was a good idea so that you don't have to live in the rain. We don't have to pave it all, but we do have to pave some of it.
I will not divest myself of sympathy for the hungry men, women, and children of the world because a sanctimonious actor who can spend $1000 on every meal insists that his ideology is superior to mine. Sanctimony is never convincing.
Nevertheless, all the meat here is grass-fed, and all the cows look happy. I see them when I'm driving around. They hang out in lush meadows and on hillsides. In fact, where I work, there are quite a few grassy hills that do nothing, so they graze cows on them part of the year. It's nice to see them trampling around and playing while I write machine control code. Those cows are going to die one day anyway, we may as well humanely make meat of them and stay strong and healthy so we can build a more beautiful, prosperous, peaceful world.
In closing, I will say that I know the above is a little optimistic, but a little optimism is called for to move us forward. We need not depress all of the kids who will build our glorious future with a gnashing of teeth about the wrongs of the past, with claims of defeat, but to motivate them with possibility. We can do better, sure, and we are trying. I believe we will succeed. We will have our beautiful, prosperous, peaceful world. We already have it on a good portion of this earth. I'm going to go outside and enjoy some of it now.
We won't pave all the forests. We won't kill all the bugs. We won't net all the fish. Partially because of hysterical people such as yourself, which is sometimes useful, and partially because of cold-thinking people such as myself, which is also sometimes useful.
For example, more than a few countries protect more than a quarter of their land. You've heard of national parks, I'm sure. Where I live, 32% of the country is protected, and of course, not all unprotected land has been paved.
The fisheries, too, are protected to varying extents, and so we farm fish in sea-pens and ponds inland. There's work still to do to rebuild the fisheries to their former glory, but it's not being ignored and pillaged as you imply. The fisheries are doing well and improving here and elsewhere, and fish is relatively affordable for hungry human beings.
What we did 100 years ago, we have learned from, and stopped, we won't clearcut the rest of the old-growth, in fact we have replanted, not just pine, but also hardwoods, even some very slow growing ones, and we hope that in a millenium (it takes a while to grow), we will have more of our old forests back.
Not much furniture is made of hardwoods now, and not many farmers in the developed world slash and burn. We already have made great strides toward making our dominion stable; perhaps even a net benefit. Pine farms sequester a lot of carbon. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as the "undeveloped" world, only the "developing" world, so they'll get there eventually too. We can and should have it all.
I take it that you personally do not live in the wild forests alone and naked? You also partake of this glorious civilization we have built? Why? Because it's better. They cut down trees to build your house, and I think you'll agree that it was a good idea so that you don't have to live in the rain. We don't have to pave it all, but we do have to pave some of it.
I will not divest myself of sympathy for the hungry men, women, and children of the world because a sanctimonious actor who can spend $1000 on every meal insists that his ideology is superior to mine. Sanctimony is never convincing.
Nevertheless, all the meat here is grass-fed, and all the cows look happy. I see them when I'm driving around. They hang out in lush meadows and on hillsides. In fact, where I work, there are quite a few grassy hills that do nothing, so they graze cows on them part of the year. It's nice to see them trampling around and playing while I write machine control code. Those cows are going to die one day anyway, we may as well humanely make meat of them and stay strong and healthy so we can build a more beautiful, prosperous, peaceful world.
In closing, I will say that I know the above is a little optimistic, but a little optimism is called for to move us forward. We need not depress all of the kids who will build our glorious future with a gnashing of teeth about the wrongs of the past, with claims of defeat, but to motivate them with possibility. We can do better, sure, and we are trying. I believe we will succeed. We will have our beautiful, prosperous, peaceful world. We already have it on a good portion of this earth. I'm going to go outside and enjoy some of it now.
Call it hysteria if you will. I will call it realism.
Optimism is a must, I agree. But it should not stop us from searching for ways forward, it should not make us complacent, it should not limit the actions we could take.
You want to believe. I get it. I was there myself. But then you'll open your eyes, see that all that progress is just words and smoke and you'll stand on the corner with the sign: "the end is nigh".
<https://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoon-gallery/the-end-is-nig...>
Some links for complementing your viewpoint.
Protected areas:
<https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-environmental-protection-area...> How Much of Earth Is Currently Protected? - 17% land, 6% sea, "many protected and conserved areas are not demonstrating effectiveness"
Fish farming:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming#Issues> Fish farming - issues <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy> Seaspiracy
Hardwood:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Present-day> - (... in 2019 ...) a third of that loss, 3.8 million hectares, occurred within humid tropical primary forests, areas of mature rainforest that are especially important for biodiversity and carbon storage. That's the equivalent of losing an area of primary forest the size of a football pitch every six seconds
Optimism is a must, I agree. But it should not stop us from searching for ways forward, it should not make us complacent, it should not limit the actions we could take.
You want to believe. I get it. I was there myself. But then you'll open your eyes, see that all that progress is just words and smoke and you'll stand on the corner with the sign: "the end is nigh".
<https://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoon-gallery/the-end-is-nig...>
Some links for complementing your viewpoint.
Protected areas:
<https://www.ecowatch.com/earth-environmental-protection-area...> How Much of Earth Is Currently Protected? - 17% land, 6% sea, "many protected and conserved areas are not demonstrating effectiveness"
Fish farming:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming#Issues> Fish farming - issues <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaspiracy> Seaspiracy
Hardwood:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Present-day> - (... in 2019 ...) a third of that loss, 3.8 million hectares, occurred within humid tropical primary forests, areas of mature rainforest that are especially important for biodiversity and carbon storage. That's the equivalent of losing an area of primary forest the size of a football pitch every six seconds
No, I don't support defeatism. The end is nowhere in sight; a struggle, privation perhaps, but that can be overcome, as we have done since time immemorial, and as we will continue to do.
There is no alternative. Defeat and death are not an alternative to working harder. It is infinitely better to fail while having tried to overcome than it is to concede defeat, give up, and lay down. The former is noble, and the latter cannot, and should not, be countenanced.
Join the fight. I am right now today building machines that grow more food on the same land. It's my day job. We don't have to work on adtech and digital casinos. We can win, we can have fun doing it, and we can be prosperous and happy.
There is no alternative. Defeat and death are not an alternative to working harder. It is infinitely better to fail while having tried to overcome than it is to concede defeat, give up, and lay down. The former is noble, and the latter cannot, and should not, be countenanced.
Join the fight. I am right now today building machines that grow more food on the same land. It's my day job. We don't have to work on adtech and digital casinos. We can win, we can have fun doing it, and we can be prosperous and happy.
I don't think that working harder will get us out of this mess we're in, it's what got us here. I don't think we have decades to invent new machines (probably spraying poisons in inovative ways), bring them to market at the required scale - there is simply not enough time.
You seem like you don't accept that nature is already critically depleted, that biodiversity is severely threatened (or you simply don't see its value), and that we're doing (as a species) too little too late too reluctantly to change the current "business as usual" approach to solving this problem.
I accept that I can't change your viewpoint here & now.
P.S. being alarmed is not hysteria, an opposite to optimism, or even defeatism.
You seem like you don't accept that nature is already critically depleted, that biodiversity is severely threatened (or you simply don't see its value), and that we're doing (as a species) too little too late too reluctantly to change the current "business as usual" approach to solving this problem.
I accept that I can't change your viewpoint here & now.
P.S. being alarmed is not hysteria, an opposite to optimism, or even defeatism.
> Mosquitoes are among the most prolific pollinators and many ecosystems depend on them.
Some definitely are, they are also an important source of biomass for extreme northern latitudes.
Anopheles is fucking useless.
Some definitely are, they are also an important source of biomass for extreme northern latitudes.
Anopheles is fucking useless.
What? Life exists because it is the fastest way of raising entropy. Self replicating biological machines process matter much faster than geological processes. The Haber Bosch process is just a faster way of raising entropy. What we should be worried about is reaching the end too soon.
You're misunderstanding either the parent comment or how entropy works. An organism is not a closed system, and thus isn't bound by any law of increasing entropy. In fact, life is practically _defined_ by maintaining local entropy (at the cost of the entropy of the systems it interacts with), as in Schrodinger's seminal work, "What is Life".
The parent comment's claim that "life is a war against entropy" is completely in line with this model.
The parent comment's claim that "life is a war against entropy" is completely in line with this model.
> All the other animals want our food.
So do all the other people. It is a very dangerous ideology that is willing to justify any action on the notion of increased survival.
So do all the other people. It is a very dangerous ideology that is willing to justify any action on the notion of increased survival.
when we kill all of the external threats we can turn on each other and meat will be plentiful, if not familiar
Earth isn’t in balance. It’s in a constant state of trying to find a temporary equilibrium.
There is this nonsense idea that the earth would be fine if humans didn’t come along. It wouldn’t. This planet is in its death throes. Life has delicately established itself in a habitable zone that is coming to an end. The carbon cycle has a good 800M years left before photosynthesis starts grinding to a halt. That might seem like a long time, but life’s been here for a good 4B years - we are 75% through life on earth. It’s taken evolution 4B years to print its first ticket off this rock: humans. That it’ll print another in 800M years is a poor bet.
The idea of saving life on this planet by curbing human progress is a fools errand. You save life on this planet by bringing it with you when you leave this rock.
There is this nonsense idea that the earth would be fine if humans didn’t come along. It wouldn’t. This planet is in its death throes. Life has delicately established itself in a habitable zone that is coming to an end. The carbon cycle has a good 800M years left before photosynthesis starts grinding to a halt. That might seem like a long time, but life’s been here for a good 4B years - we are 75% through life on earth. It’s taken evolution 4B years to print its first ticket off this rock: humans. That it’ll print another in 800M years is a poor bet.
The idea of saving life on this planet by curbing human progress is a fools errand. You save life on this planet by bringing it with you when you leave this rock.
What???
I have never meant anyone who's concerned about Earth's ability to perpetuate its ecosystems in 800 million years. People are concerned about its ability to (comfortably) support human life 20, 200, or (maybe) 2000 years from now.
It seems as if you're trying to imply that industrial humanity hasn't had a uniquely destructive impact on the natural environment over the past two centuries.
I have never meant anyone who's concerned about Earth's ability to perpetuate its ecosystems in 800 million years. People are concerned about its ability to (comfortably) support human life 20, 200, or (maybe) 2000 years from now.
It seems as if you're trying to imply that industrial humanity hasn't had a uniquely destructive impact on the natural environment over the past two centuries.
I’m in the same boat… I’ve never crossed paths with anyone else who is worried about this planets ability to support life in 800M years. It’s weird to me.
Everyone is obsessed with these short time scales. But I’ve yet to see someone propose a viable alternative to human civilization on a 800M year timescale.
Yes, I do believe humans are bringing about the end of the Holocene. But I’m fairly forgiving of the human race on multiple grounds:
1 - life on earth needs a ticket out or it dies in 800M years no matter what. That ticket requires escaping orbit and establishing itself on another rock. I have no reason to believe that any species that evolves to successfully do that would fair better than humanity. It doesn’t matter how far in the future this event is, it’s a critical path for at least one species to follow if life on earth is to end in any way other than complete extinction. If it has to happen - it has to happen. And so far, I haven’t seen many great arguments for viable alternative timelines of human (or non-human) progress that avoid complete extinction in 800M years.
2 - No other species on earth, that I know of, self identifies that it is past the ecosystem’s carrying capacity and attempts to self correct. For example, white tail deer in the Midwest will gladly keep having babies and eat all their food supply. The plants all die. Then the deer all starve. Then the wolves and coyotes all starve. And then the cycle repeats. The deer don’t call international food symposiums to talk about the sustainability of harvesting their food stock. This is a uniquely human trait. Humans are held to a different standard because we know better - which in and of itself is amazing and gives me significant hope.
TL;DR: there isn’t another species that I’d bet on to do a better job at saving all life on earth than what humans are already doing. Yes we have work to do, of course we have work to do, because we are literally life on earth’s only (risk adjusted) chance. If you’re not trying to sustainably save life on earth, what are you advocating for?
Everyone is obsessed with these short time scales. But I’ve yet to see someone propose a viable alternative to human civilization on a 800M year timescale.
Yes, I do believe humans are bringing about the end of the Holocene. But I’m fairly forgiving of the human race on multiple grounds:
1 - life on earth needs a ticket out or it dies in 800M years no matter what. That ticket requires escaping orbit and establishing itself on another rock. I have no reason to believe that any species that evolves to successfully do that would fair better than humanity. It doesn’t matter how far in the future this event is, it’s a critical path for at least one species to follow if life on earth is to end in any way other than complete extinction. If it has to happen - it has to happen. And so far, I haven’t seen many great arguments for viable alternative timelines of human (or non-human) progress that avoid complete extinction in 800M years.
2 - No other species on earth, that I know of, self identifies that it is past the ecosystem’s carrying capacity and attempts to self correct. For example, white tail deer in the Midwest will gladly keep having babies and eat all their food supply. The plants all die. Then the deer all starve. Then the wolves and coyotes all starve. And then the cycle repeats. The deer don’t call international food symposiums to talk about the sustainability of harvesting their food stock. This is a uniquely human trait. Humans are held to a different standard because we know better - which in and of itself is amazing and gives me significant hope.
TL;DR: there isn’t another species that I’d bet on to do a better job at saving all life on earth than what humans are already doing. Yes we have work to do, of course we have work to do, because we are literally life on earth’s only (risk adjusted) chance. If you’re not trying to sustainably save life on earth, what are you advocating for?
I suppose the primary reason nobody cares about the continuation of the species (or any species) in 800 million years is that it is meaningless if we all die in 200 years. It's worrying about the sliver in your toe when you're currently free falling at 200 mph toward a ravine full of jagged rocks and porcupines and battery acid (diverse ecosystem).
> That it’ll print another in 800M years is a poor bet.
I don't feel completely safe in ruling out cephalopods in that regard. That said, life on dry land would seem to be a precursor to scientific advancement such as chemistry.
I don't feel completely safe in ruling out cephalopods in that regard. That said, life on dry land would seem to be a precursor to scientific advancement such as chemistry.
> The carbon cycle has a good 800M years left before photosynthesis starts grinding to a halt.
What?
What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Most of that is fairly bleak.
Most of that is fairly bleak.
TL;DR the Sun's slowly getting brighter, which will eventually (and LONG before the much-talked-about-as-the-end-of-the-world "Sun expands and eats the Earth" thing) break the carbonate-silicate cycle. This will affect availability of carbon to the biosphere. There are a few pathways for photosynthesis, and these will, basically one at a time, stop being viable over a period of one or two hundred million years, with the biosphere coming under more and more stress (=lots of stuff dying, biomass reducing). At some point, diversity among and quantity of large life forms will shrink tremendously, and finally there will be no (or damn near no—perhaps some lobster-type things will survive near undersea vents) more complex life on Earth, due to lack of available energy.
Uh, just migrate to a colder planet.
Even if we were at war in a planetary scale, a population of billions is more than enough to survive anything but the most apocalyptic scenarios. We can surely scale back without risk to our species.
> We can outsmart, and have repeatedly outsmarted, all sorts of potential disasters.
Unfortunately, the main one we can't outsmart is volcanic winter, which has produced planet-wide famines on several occasions, and is all but certain to happen again.
Geologically speaking, the 20th century was pretty quiet. In the 21st century we've already had two tsunamis (including the 2nd or 3rd biggest earthquake), and the Tonga volcanic eruption, which was fortunately below sea level, but still likely the second loudest noise in human history after Krakatoa, and Eyjafjallajökull which had the potential for volcanic smog but fortunately didn't happen.
We're overdue a Cascadia mega-thrust earthquake which would have "interesting" repercussions for the tech industry, given how much of it is based on the US west coast.
I agree with your point though, we've largely progressed through normal seasonal issues with crops, and dramatically improved yields via science.
Unfortunately, the main one we can't outsmart is volcanic winter, which has produced planet-wide famines on several occasions, and is all but certain to happen again.
Geologically speaking, the 20th century was pretty quiet. In the 21st century we've already had two tsunamis (including the 2nd or 3rd biggest earthquake), and the Tonga volcanic eruption, which was fortunately below sea level, but still likely the second loudest noise in human history after Krakatoa, and Eyjafjallajökull which had the potential for volcanic smog but fortunately didn't happen.
We're overdue a Cascadia mega-thrust earthquake which would have "interesting" repercussions for the tech industry, given how much of it is based on the US west coast.
I agree with your point though, we've largely progressed through normal seasonal issues with crops, and dramatically improved yields via science.
> Unfortunately, the main one we can't outsmart is volcanic winter, which has produced planet-wide famines on several occasions
And yet, here we are still.
And yet, here we are still.
Indeed. But with 7 billion people on the planet, a volcanic winter that lasts just a couple of years would be catastrophic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
The main difference between now and 1315 is the amount of calories we get from meat. When we have a food shortage, farmers can't afford to feed their cattle so they sell them, depressing the price of beef. Rich people eat more beef, and poor people eat cattle feed.
What really causes starvation is a shortage of shipping. Shipping wheat from Thunder Bay to Egypt requires a lot more ships than shipping from Odessa to Egypt.
What really causes starvation is a shortage of shipping. Shipping wheat from Thunder Bay to Egypt requires a lot more ships than shipping from Odessa to Egypt.
I don't see what argument you're trying to make. All food will be affected, and billions may die.
In canada and US we grow so much corn to feed cattle and pigs, it’s so cheap that farmers have set up pellets stove that burn corn for heating.
So: kill the cows and the pigs, eat the meat and the feed.
So: kill the cows and the pigs, eat the meat and the feed.
I'm saying that if food production drops 30%, millions will die, not billions.
If both food production and oil production drop at the same time, then we're screwed.
If both food production and oil production drop at the same time, then we're screwed.
Thus, we better get over our dependency of oil before the next food disaster hits.
(A volcanic winter would be quite bad for solar too. I don't know how fast we can scale fission in a disaster scenario, but I think it's our best hope. We should keep improving our fission tech too.)
(A volcanic winter would be quite bad for solar too. I don't know how fast we can scale fission in a disaster scenario, but I think it's our best hope. We should keep improving our fission tech too.)
A volcanic winter would only drop solar production 10% or so.
Another big virtual stockpile is ethanol. If the price of corn rises, less of it will be converted into ethanol. But if the price of oil rises faster than the price of gas...
It is sort of interesting -- in the US, we waste about 30%-40% of our food, so there's clearly enough food that we should be able to capture some excess (possibly changing our diets slightly, to make sure to eat stuff that spoils quickly and save stuff which can be made shell stable). Say we can only capture 1/4 of it, so, we stockpile ~a country's worth of food per decade. This seems like the most obvious possible thing for a people that has already met it's needs to do -- prepare for an emergencies. But we've never seen a famine like this, so we probably won't prepare for it.
So the human species will survive... big whoop. What is at stake are the lives, health and well-being of billions of people.
It's a global disaster scenario. What would you expect?
> when the developing world is developed, I suspect they also will see declining population
I suspect you are right.
What is less clear is whether earth has the resources to sustain the standard of living rising in these developing nations.
There is currently 1.2 billion people living in developed countries and 5.4 billion in developing countries. Even if the developing populations stabilise, if their standard of living increases to match that of the 1.2 billion developed population, will our natural resources and environmental systems cope?
If not, we need to work on ways to maintain a developed world standard of living without using nearly as many natural resources.
I suspect you are right.
What is less clear is whether earth has the resources to sustain the standard of living rising in these developing nations.
There is currently 1.2 billion people living in developed countries and 5.4 billion in developing countries. Even if the developing populations stabilise, if their standard of living increases to match that of the 1.2 billion developed population, will our natural resources and environmental systems cope?
If not, we need to work on ways to maintain a developed world standard of living without using nearly as many natural resources.
For a high standard of living, we mostly need energy and some gadgets.
We are sitting on a big ball of matter, so at long as we have the energy, we can make all the gadget we need. (You can even make food underground in multiple levels, if you have enough energy to burn on lighting.)
So the real problem is energy. Luckily, renewable are currently getting a lot cheaper. And we also still have nuclear, if we really want to go that route. Fission works, and fusion is in the works.
We are sitting on a big ball of matter, so at long as we have the energy, we can make all the gadget we need. (You can even make food underground in multiple levels, if you have enough energy to burn on lighting.)
So the real problem is energy. Luckily, renewable are currently getting a lot cheaper. And we also still have nuclear, if we really want to go that route. Fission works, and fusion is in the works.
I've come to believe that having enough energy (assuming enough raw materials to kickstart the process) solves a ton of society-level problems. For example, the supply of potable water is nigh endless if we have the energy available to run desalination plants. Or, if we never end up figuring out an alternative fuel for planes, the carbon emissions they produce don't really matter if we can just expend energy sequestering it afterwards using energy from a more sustainable source.
I've heard it put this way: energy is the only resource. If we have enough energy almost anything can be recycled or turned into anything. Wastewater and saltwater can be turned back into fresh water. Trash can be separated and recycled. With sufficient and sufficiently cheap energy vertical farming is even an option.
That is absurd. If you only have energy, you have nothing that is worth transforming. It is more appropriate to say that land(including the atmosphere surrounding it) is the most important source of wealth, as you can both extract energy and elements from it.
The land on the moon is worth very little as there is almost no water on it. If we could extract rocket fuels from there we would already be sending people to mars. People don't seem to understand how valuable our planet is.
The land on the moon is worth very little as there is almost no water on it. If we could extract rocket fuels from there we would already be sending people to mars. People don't seem to understand how valuable our planet is.
> The land on the moon is worth very little as there is almost no water on it.
For water, the moon mostly lacks hydrogen. There's lots of oxygen in the rocks up there.
In general, I have sympathy for your position.
I think the person you replied to meant that being on earth, all you need is electricity. The rest falls into place.
Yes, the earth is extremely convenient.
For water, the moon mostly lacks hydrogen. There's lots of oxygen in the rocks up there.
In general, I have sympathy for your position.
I think the person you replied to meant that being on earth, all you need is electricity. The rest falls into place.
Yes, the earth is extremely convenient.
Well, it's not so much energy by itself, but an energy gradient.
In simple terms, having electricity is great. In contrast, oceans full of water at a balmy 20C have lots of heat energy, but you can't really use it, if there's no gradient.
See the second law of thermodynamics.
Or in other terms: you want electricity and a way to get rid of waste heat, like being able to radiate into outer space.
In simple terms, having electricity is great. In contrast, oceans full of water at a balmy 20C have lots of heat energy, but you can't really use it, if there's no gradient.
See the second law of thermodynamics.
Or in other terms: you want electricity and a way to get rid of waste heat, like being able to radiate into outer space.
> energy is the only resource
Hum... It's the only one we have to consume. But we still need the others, even if on fixed amounts.
Hum... It's the only one we have to consume. But we still need the others, even if on fixed amounts.
The real problem is wealth. A lucky few will be able to hole up, but that'll only be the ones that can afford it; the rest will die from starvation.
I mean there was already alarm bells from UNESCO today or yesterday that the food program is at risk due to rising food costs due to the conflict in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, which in turn puts a lot of people that depend on that food program at risk.
And it's closer to home as well; the amount of people that start to rely on food banks has gone up sharply with the high inflation.
I mean it's dumb IMO; while all companies are eager to raise prices with inflation as soon as it happens, wages lag behind.
I mean there was already alarm bells from UNESCO today or yesterday that the food program is at risk due to rising food costs due to the conflict in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, which in turn puts a lot of people that depend on that food program at risk.
And it's closer to home as well; the amount of people that start to rely on food banks has gone up sharply with the high inflation.
I mean it's dumb IMO; while all companies are eager to raise prices with inflation as soon as it happens, wages lag behind.
Are you willing to make any predictions firm enough to bet on?
Productivity increases at the same time. It's not free, there'd need to be complementary expansion of resource gathering and development of more efficient technology, but naively plugging in the values for life in developed nations won't get you the right result. In reality, this translates to a slower climb to developed nations status, not resource shortages (barring unrelated issues).
Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same limited resources?
It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger.
It ultimately needs to reach an equilibrium where a developed nation lifestyle for the entire world population would only consume natural resources at the rate that they can be replenished.
It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger.
It ultimately needs to reach an equilibrium where a developed nation lifestyle for the entire world population would only consume natural resources at the rate that they can be replenished.
> Couldn't it also translate into a falling standard of living in developed countries as large populations of increasingly affluent people compete for the same limited resources?
This certainly isn't impossible! You could construct scenarios where exactly that happens. But in real life, developed nations have an absolute advantage in producing just about everything. Some things are cheaper in developing nations, but only because of the opportunity costs (as in, steel would be cheaper in America, but the difference is even bigger in planes or whatever so that's what gets made there). If tomorrow the entire world was developed there would obviously be huge issues, but a continuous change would work out just fine.
Now that's not to say that there wouldn't be a higher fraction of people working in jobs which today in developed nations are seen as lesser. Some tasks are simply most efficient with a human at the helm. But if you wander around the rust belt, you'll find plenty of people that wish it made economic sense to employ them in manufacturing or mining. The shift wouldn't be a bad one.
> It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger.
That is absolutely true, but people overestimate the effect of resource use compared to pollution and the like. We will probably never run out of oil, metal, or any other nonrenewable resource. There's plenty there, and productivity growth will likely ensure that it is cost effective to extract pretty much indefinitely. Land is another story, as we're using a greater fraction of it than most other resources, but it's not by enough to make a huge difference.
The issue is pollution and other public bads. We can feed the world on very little land, but all the nitrogen runoff could cause other issues. We could go centuries without ever hitting peak oil, but dumping that much carbon into the atmosphere is problematic for obvious reasons. But that's no reason to fear production specifically! With greater productivity, we'd find it far easier to roll out nuclear worldwide. And while wasteful food production wouldn't go away without government regulation (or worldwide shifts in consumer preferences I won't hold my breath for), we can make those regulations and it's a small price to pay to increase the global standard of living.
This certainly isn't impossible! You could construct scenarios where exactly that happens. But in real life, developed nations have an absolute advantage in producing just about everything. Some things are cheaper in developing nations, but only because of the opportunity costs (as in, steel would be cheaper in America, but the difference is even bigger in planes or whatever so that's what gets made there). If tomorrow the entire world was developed there would obviously be huge issues, but a continuous change would work out just fine.
Now that's not to say that there wouldn't be a higher fraction of people working in jobs which today in developed nations are seen as lesser. Some tasks are simply most efficient with a human at the helm. But if you wander around the rust belt, you'll find plenty of people that wish it made economic sense to employ them in manufacturing or mining. The shift wouldn't be a bad one.
> It could also translate into an increased rate of extraction/depletion of natural resources, as the economic incentive grows stronger.
That is absolutely true, but people overestimate the effect of resource use compared to pollution and the like. We will probably never run out of oil, metal, or any other nonrenewable resource. There's plenty there, and productivity growth will likely ensure that it is cost effective to extract pretty much indefinitely. Land is another story, as we're using a greater fraction of it than most other resources, but it's not by enough to make a huge difference.
The issue is pollution and other public bads. We can feed the world on very little land, but all the nitrogen runoff could cause other issues. We could go centuries without ever hitting peak oil, but dumping that much carbon into the atmosphere is problematic for obvious reasons. But that's no reason to fear production specifically! With greater productivity, we'd find it far easier to roll out nuclear worldwide. And while wasteful food production wouldn't go away without government regulation (or worldwide shifts in consumer preferences I won't hold my breath for), we can make those regulations and it's a small price to pay to increase the global standard of living.
> We can outsmart, and have repeatedly outsmarted, all sorts of potential disasters.
Sometimes it was just mankind surviving as a species though. Humans as a whole are probably hard to kill. But that says nothing about one of the defining traits of mankind: Their ability to form advanced cultures and civilizations. The survival rate of these cultures is abysmal and there is no reason to be believe, the current culture with its incredible high standard of living for as many people as ever before, will not fail. I blame Hollywood and their stories about the eternally advancing human race for this fallacy.
Sure humans will likely survive a great many catastrophes but they might find themselves again in an agrarian society and in far fewer numbers.
> We can't ignore our problems, but neither have we met with any sort of defeat.
Yet.
Sometimes it was just mankind surviving as a species though. Humans as a whole are probably hard to kill. But that says nothing about one of the defining traits of mankind: Their ability to form advanced cultures and civilizations. The survival rate of these cultures is abysmal and there is no reason to be believe, the current culture with its incredible high standard of living for as many people as ever before, will not fail. I blame Hollywood and their stories about the eternally advancing human race for this fallacy.
Sure humans will likely survive a great many catastrophes but they might find themselves again in an agrarian society and in far fewer numbers.
> We can't ignore our problems, but neither have we met with any sort of defeat.
Yet.
>when the developing world is developed, I suspect they also will see declining population
The problem is that the developed world needs too many resources per capita. The developing world will have similar issues when it reaches a standard of living where they start declining. Also this decline is too slow and too far out to matter. We need to effectively at least halve global resource usage in the next 1 or 2 decades. Waiting until the developing world stops growing in 30 years is not a solution.
The problem is that the developed world needs too many resources per capita. The developing world will have similar issues when it reaches a standard of living where they start declining. Also this decline is too slow and too far out to matter. We need to effectively at least halve global resource usage in the next 1 or 2 decades. Waiting until the developing world stops growing in 30 years is not a solution.
> We can outsmart, and have repeatedly outsmarted, all sorts of potential disasters.
While this is my general take on these kinds of things as well, it's good to keep in mind that it takes just one outlier disaster to never be able to outsmart anything ever again, and perhaps it's just dumb luck that we're in a timeline where that didn't happen so far.
While this is my general take on these kinds of things as well, it's good to keep in mind that it takes just one outlier disaster to never be able to outsmart anything ever again, and perhaps it's just dumb luck that we're in a timeline where that didn't happen so far.
Yeah I don't see how we could outsmart a volcanic winter. I mean I'm sure we can grow some food under artificial sunlight, but nowhere near enough to ensure the survival of everyone.
At least, most of the volcanic winters they record on Wikipedia seem to have just reduced crop productivity by some amount. It isn't like a "blot out the sun like in The Matrix" type situation. We might be able to make up the gap just by increasing efficiency in our distribution.
Apparently the volcanic winter of 536 lowered global temperatures by around 2.5C, which puts global warming in a worrying light, though.
Apparently the volcanic winter of 536 lowered global temperatures by around 2.5C, which puts global warming in a worrying light, though.
> Apparently the volcanic winter of 536 lowered global temperatures by around 2.5C, which puts global warming in a worrying light, though.
It's not obvious to me so I'll ask: why does the volcanic winter of 536 lowering global temps by 2.5C put global warming in a worrying light?
It's not obvious to me so I'll ask: why does the volcanic winter of 536 lowering global temps by 2.5C put global warming in a worrying light?
The problem with this is it's easy to say "we can't ignore our problems", and everyone will agree, but for most meaningful purposes that is exactly what is happening. We've been ignoring the problems and saying things like this for over half a century, while they continue to get worse.
When does it become advisable to start ignoring the people saying "don't worry, it's not too late, we'll figure it out"? While this may still be true, it's a great way to rationalize putting off the massive social, psychological, legal and technical changes we desperately need.
When does it become advisable to start ignoring the people saying "don't worry, it's not too late, we'll figure it out"? While this may still be true, it's a great way to rationalize putting off the massive social, psychological, legal and technical changes we desperately need.
> We can outsmart, and have repeatedly outsmarted, all sorts of potential disasters.
We are so smart it took us two hundred years to realise we are creating a disaster ourselves, and we still can't figure out how to stop it. Because we are so smart we keep outsmarting ourselves. Or our greed does, I'm not sure.
We are so smart it took us two hundred years to realise we are creating a disaster ourselves, and we still can't figure out how to stop it. Because we are so smart we keep outsmarting ourselves. Or our greed does, I'm not sure.
The turkey tells his comrades what he is thankful for in early November.
(with tongue very slightly in cheek)
(with tongue very slightly in cheek)
Well, I think it's time to start outsmarting.
If we continue down this path, were going to run against a wall
If we continue down this path, were going to run against a wall
I am extremely frustrated by these kinds of degrowth narratives, as they usually come out of a genuine concern for the environment - but all their approaches to solutions are extremely economically illiterate.
This [1] article explains some of my frustrations, but doesn't address everything mentioned on the Overshoot website.
[1]: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...
This [1] article explains some of my frustrations, but doesn't address everything mentioned on the Overshoot website.
[1]: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...
> economically illiterate
This is proposing that people are lacking faith. You believe something must work because an economic theory proposed that it does. In reality these theories often fail to predict anything substantial.
Our economic system is very primitive and requires steady growth. But in reality the productivity of a finite area of land cannot grow any further even with technological advancement and long before you hit the limits of thermodynamics. The only thing that can grow in an unlimited fashion are excuses by economists to be honest.
Sorry, perhaps I just don't have the growth mindset.
Not proposing that the end is nigh, but bullshit has to be called what it is in the interest of progress.
This is proposing that people are lacking faith. You believe something must work because an economic theory proposed that it does. In reality these theories often fail to predict anything substantial.
Our economic system is very primitive and requires steady growth. But in reality the productivity of a finite area of land cannot grow any further even with technological advancement and long before you hit the limits of thermodynamics. The only thing that can grow in an unlimited fashion are excuses by economists to be honest.
Sorry, perhaps I just don't have the growth mindset.
Not proposing that the end is nigh, but bullshit has to be called what it is in the interest of progress.
You might want to read up on the bet between Ehrlich and Simon.
That was a lifetime ago, and people still bring it up. All it demonstrates is that growth can go on for a bit. Can it actually go indefinitely? So far that we don't even need to care?
Ehrlich might have been way too early but still have something interesting to say.
Ehrlich might have been way too early but still have something interesting to say.
Basically none of Ehrlich's predictions ever came true.
You might want to read up on their second wager. If they had taken that first wager 10 years ago, what do you think the result would be?
If you haven't, I would suggest "The Limits to Growth." I'm not arguing for "de-growth," but I think your fundamental assumption that we can innovate or Silicon Valley our way out of climate change without inadvertently sacrificing economic prosperity is too late and highly naive. https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19...
If you haven't, I would suggest "The Limits to Growth." I'm not arguing for "de-growth," but I think your fundamental assumption that we can innovate or Silicon Valley our way out of climate change without inadvertently sacrificing economic prosperity is too late and highly naive. https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19...
but all their approaches to solutions are extremely economically illiterate.
Not quite convinced about that. That, or the solutions you read aren't up to par with what science has to say about it. For starters not all presented solutions are even about degrowth?
Just one example, take land use: the last talk I heard about that be a professor from a local university, people aren't exactly advocating 'less growth, less land use' but more like 'we expect synthetic meat to be x% of food intake so there's y% less land needed for animals and if all of that would be taken up by the produce needed for the synthetic meat that is actually i% more protein produced/acre' and 'x% of nice fertile land is going to degrade within the next decades because of erosion so if we implement some relatively simple measures that can be countered' and 'instead of dividing land into massive fields for production and some small dots of nature in between, as far as preservation goes it is often actually better to not do that but create one area for nature as large as those dots and optionally but even more optimal create lines of nature to connect those bigger patches'.
Sounds economically viable to me, or at least certainly not 'extremely illiterate', and also not impossible.
Not quite convinced about that. That, or the solutions you read aren't up to par with what science has to say about it. For starters not all presented solutions are even about degrowth?
Just one example, take land use: the last talk I heard about that be a professor from a local university, people aren't exactly advocating 'less growth, less land use' but more like 'we expect synthetic meat to be x% of food intake so there's y% less land needed for animals and if all of that would be taken up by the produce needed for the synthetic meat that is actually i% more protein produced/acre' and 'x% of nice fertile land is going to degrade within the next decades because of erosion so if we implement some relatively simple measures that can be countered' and 'instead of dividing land into massive fields for production and some small dots of nature in between, as far as preservation goes it is often actually better to not do that but create one area for nature as large as those dots and optionally but even more optimal create lines of nature to connect those bigger patches'.
Sounds economically viable to me, or at least certainly not 'extremely illiterate', and also not impossible.
Which parts of the site do you interpret as describing "degrowth" narrative? I had a look at the solutions listed and the general theme seemed to be smarter use of existing resources and didn't really mention growth, or reducing growth.
- Producing energy using less fossil fuels, not necessarily producing less energy
- Producing food in a way that uses less fossil fuels, not producing less food.
I think what the site is saying is we depend on ecological systems and natural resources to sustain our current standard of living, but we are consuming them at a faster rate than they can replenish. We need to use the available resources more efficiently - doesn't necessarily translate to less or even slower growth though.
I think what the site is saying is we depend on ecological systems and natural resources to sustain our current standard of living, but we are consuming them at a faster rate than they can replenish. We need to use the available resources more efficiently - doesn't necessarily translate to less or even slower growth though.
Sustainable resource use leads to more growth, just not faster growth. You can overfish or overgraze to boost growth in the short term while sacrificing overall growth as ecosystem collapse will result in no or little growth. It would be more appropriate to look at 'lifetime' income of a resource but that would require 0% interest rates as positive interest rates devalue future income and reward short term thinking.
I'm glad you linked to that article, which I had not seen before.
I think I agree with the author about degrowth as a goal being a political nonstarter. But I'm pretty skeptical about the notion that future growth can consist of ever increasing amounts of "dematerialized" goods and services without ceasing to be real, meaningful growth (however it might be defined).
I also think the political and physical challenges inherent in technological or "pro-growth" (I need a better word) solutions for getting out of overshoot are widely underappreciated. This [1] article runs some numbers to show that, for our global civilization to satisfy its current level of energy consumption without emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases in 2050, we will have to bring online clean energy generation capacity equivalent to one nuclear power station every day between now and then. Given that, I'd be extremely surprised to see us get there by 2150, or maybe at all.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero...
I think I agree with the author about degrowth as a goal being a political nonstarter. But I'm pretty skeptical about the notion that future growth can consist of ever increasing amounts of "dematerialized" goods and services without ceasing to be real, meaningful growth (however it might be defined).
I also think the political and physical challenges inherent in technological or "pro-growth" (I need a better word) solutions for getting out of overshoot are widely underappreciated. This [1] article runs some numbers to show that, for our global civilization to satisfy its current level of energy consumption without emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases in 2050, we will have to bring online clean energy generation capacity equivalent to one nuclear power station every day between now and then. Given that, I'd be extremely surprised to see us get there by 2150, or maybe at all.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero...
As a counterexample:
In 2019,2020, the French government did an experiment with a random sample of citizen. It showed that if people are properly formed and educated about the climate crisis, they are willing to make a change and can even be more radical that what the climate expert wished for
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Clim...
Also economy is just numbers going up and down, it's not real. You just need to change some variables of what makes economic growth if you want your numbers keep going up in gdp. Earth overshoot is not as flexible, we don't make the rules.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for_Clim...
Also economy is just numbers going up and down, it's not real. You just need to change some variables of what makes economic growth if you want your numbers keep going up in gdp. Earth overshoot is not as flexible, we don't make the rules.
What is truly economically illiterate is to think that an economy needs to grow every year just to maintain the same standard of living. The economy is currently set up in a way that we will lose more than just future progress if growth stops, we will also lose past progress. It would be wise to get rid of this pointless rigidity.
This fixation on growing every single year hurts prospects to grow more over longer periods of time. It also causes needless environmental destruction. We would rather deplete the soil for a quick buck than maintain it and make it better every year at the cost of lower initial yields.
This fixation on growing every single year hurts prospects to grow more over longer periods of time. It also causes needless environmental destruction. We would rather deplete the soil for a quick buck than maintain it and make it better every year at the cost of lower initial yields.
economics is a social science. it always must bow down to physics and it repeatedly has, to the dismay of economists...
> economics is a social science.
economics is a psuedoscience like all social sciences and astrology. They've predicted absolutely nothing of value. It's just people studying these things prior to them becoming scientific, like people did with alchemy and whatnot before chemistry.
economics is a psuedoscience like all social sciences and astrology. They've predicted absolutely nothing of value. It's just people studying these things prior to them becoming scientific, like people did with alchemy and whatnot before chemistry.
Wasn't the field of economics mostly a pseudoscientific cover for actions/creation of the Fed?
I don't know but I'd say this comment sums it up pretty well more generally https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31409576
Almost as if they were criticising the current economic framework, its ideology and consequences, it really makes you think doesn't it...
Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economies so we have strong incentives to avoid wars?
It's interesting that you see this as an incentive to avoid wars. A large proportion of wars have been caused by resource interdependence (invasions to secure external resources that are relied heavily upon), not avoided by it.
It’s meta-stable. War is very expensive. Resource interdependence is usually a disincentive to war. However when resources are either extremely valuable or essential, usually either oil or water, then it can overcome the disincentive and become an incentive to conflict.
> War is very expensive.
Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession.
The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession.
The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
You are half-right, in that any money spent goes somewhere, thus the government deficit spending to finance the war becomes business or household income.
However, war is expensive in strictly economic term due to the physical destruction of resources.
A bombed factory cannot produce cars. If the skilled engineers needed to rebuild or operate the factor are not available (dead, otherwise occupied, etc), this will also result in economic loss.
The investment to convert a factory from car-making to military-vehicle making only generates long-term value if the military continues to order from that factory. Otherwise, that investment does not generate a return, likewise it takes additional investment to convert it back to car manufacture.
Ukraine is not selling much wheat this year, due to the war. Since this wheat is perishable, its economic value is lost.
However, war is expensive in strictly economic term due to the physical destruction of resources.
A bombed factory cannot produce cars. If the skilled engineers needed to rebuild or operate the factor are not available (dead, otherwise occupied, etc), this will also result in economic loss.
The investment to convert a factory from car-making to military-vehicle making only generates long-term value if the military continues to order from that factory. Otherwise, that investment does not generate a return, likewise it takes additional investment to convert it back to car manufacture.
Ukraine is not selling much wheat this year, due to the war. Since this wheat is perishable, its economic value is lost.
This is a good point, but is mostly asymmetrical and favours the aggressor (there are many exceptions but they're in the minority).
Couldn't you just give people money and avoid the part where you set part of the economic output on fire?
I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
This paradox was resolved by economist Bastiat in 1850
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I was very careful in my comment not to directly use the term "economically beneficial", as wars are provably detrimental to the economy holistically. It's only beneficial to the abstracted idea of "economy" many modern economists and GDP-discourse folk subscribe to.
Bastiat's parable alone is not particularly convincing in itself as it chooses to deal exclusively with currency (something that's provably debunkable by looking at economic systems even slightly more complex than the oversimplified whims of one shopkeeper), and not with the allocation of resources to society in general, which is much more negatively impacted by war / broken windows.
Bastiat's parable alone is not particularly convincing in itself as it chooses to deal exclusively with currency (something that's provably debunkable by looking at economic systems even slightly more complex than the oversimplified whims of one shopkeeper), and not with the allocation of resources to society in general, which is much more negatively impacted by war / broken windows.
I think wars can be straightforwardly economically beneficial, but only if spending is politically constrained.
How???
The idea is if you can spend money on a bomb, you have some money that flows through a production chain, giving people employment, and at the end you get an item (the bomb) and you destroy it. It would be strictly better if you did anything else with the money, that resulted in the same employment spending but you'd have less value left at the end to destroy. But say that you live in a militarized society where it's easy to agree to fund bombs but very hard to agree to fund social services. Then the bomb may be your only option, and it's still better for your economy to build the bomb than not.
It's the broken-window effect, if your political system is captured by a glassmakers' lobby.
It's the broken-window effect, if your political system is captured by a glassmakers' lobby.
What does "economically beneficial" means in this context?
I agree that some measures of economy (GDP? unemployment?) would get better in this scenario, but the whole effort wouldn't serve any other purpose than to increase those values, making it a little pointless.
I guess if this is what you're trying to say, then it is indeed an indictment of how we do economy.
I agree that some measures of economy (GDP? unemployment?) would get better in this scenario, but the whole effort wouldn't serve any other purpose than to increase those values, making it a little pointless.
I guess if this is what you're trying to say, then it is indeed an indictment of how we do economy.
Yeah I guess I view the economy as a system for maximizing value. This largely happens through consumptive spending. So this entire thing is a weird backdoor mechanism for giving people money for consumptive spending and burning their labor in exchange.
Could you just give people the money without burning their labor in spectacular explosions? Yes. But we don't. :shrugs:
Could you just give people the money without burning their labor in spectacular explosions? Yes. But we don't. :shrugs:
Wow this is basically Keynesian gold digging but perverted to an even higher degree. Keynes idea was that we burry bank notes and tell people to dig them up as proof of work. Of course Keynes mentioned building houses and the like would be a better idea but if the political environment wouldn't allow it (guess what hasn't changed?) then any crackpot idea that brings money into the hands of those desperate for employment would be better than doing nothing. I guess you can take this idea too far. If the political environment got so bad the only way to justify further employment is (preparing for)war we should take a step back and really think about what we should be doing instead.
You're ignoring what the bomb does.
> it's still better for your economy
No. It's not. It's always worse in every way other than pure monetary terms.
> it's still better for your economy
No. It's not. It's always worse in every way other than pure monetary terms.
> You're ignoring what the bomb does.
I mean sure, but that's contingent, not required. For instance, imagine two nations going to war with combat robots that can be perfectly recycled. The only effect is direct consumption of labor. However, due to the militarized society, the labor would be worthless otherwise.
I mean sure, but that's contingent, not required. For instance, imagine two nations going to war with combat robots that can be perfectly recycled. The only effect is direct consumption of labor. However, due to the militarized society, the labor would be worthless otherwise.
Well, it's not really a fallacy if you account for political impediments to just giving people money.
In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
It's pretty easy to print money..
(Yet, sometimes like around 2008 countries still fail.)
(Yet, sometimes like around 2008 countries still fail.)
What is not easy is getting that money on the hands of the people, instead of a few rich folks.
If the rich folks spend it, it gets into the hands of other people.
If the rich folks keep it, then it doesn't contribute to anything (eg not to inflation), and you can just print more.
In fact, the latter is much better: you can have your central bank gradually buy up the rest of the world without any inflation nor devaluation of your currency.
If the rich folks keep it, then it doesn't contribute to anything (eg not to inflation), and you can just print more.
In fact, the latter is much better: you can have your central bank gradually buy up the rest of the world without any inflation nor devaluation of your currency.
If the rich folk spend it, it gets in the hands of other people exactly insomuch as the other people are required to make something that the rich people want. That is increasingly not a given. And of course, it also burns some portion of those people's economic output on Rich People Interests.
If the rich people "X" it and it gets in the hands of other people without burning those people's economic output on RPIs, then X is called "donating", not "spending". And in that case, we might as well cut out the middleman, cough UBI cough.
If the rich people "X" it and it gets in the hands of other people without burning those people's economic output on RPIs, then X is called "donating", not "spending". And in that case, we might as well cut out the middleman, cough UBI cough.
With spending money being a proxy for labour, I'm disappointed that the article mentions labour only once.
20th century economics has a thing or two to add over those simple ideas.
What things?
There is a huge amount of complexity created by price-stickness and other non-rational behavior.
There exist (with quite a lot of empirical validation) some situations where moving the money around improves the society, even if the reason the money is moving is a slight loss.
There exist (with quite a lot of empirical validation) some situations where moving the money around improves the society, even if the reason the money is moving is a slight loss.
Are you saying that going around breaking random windows is actually good for society?
It may be, it may not be, depends on some factors.
It's not as simple as "spending money on wasteful things doesn't benefit anyone", but it is always the case that if you would gain even from breaking windows, you would gain even more from spending on something useful.
It's not as simple as "spending money on wasteful things doesn't benefit anyone", but it is always the case that if you would gain even from breaking windows, you would gain even more from spending on something useful.
It's not the war per se that lifts countries out of recession, but the ignoring of economic dogma in order to do whatever it takes to wage war. I would posit the same resources could be directed to more productive things than blowing stuff up (btw, this is largely the argument of MMT).
War destroy capital. If you think of production in non-monetary terms, war is always a net negative.
> War destroy capital.
It does. It also destroys cartels, rentiers, economic caste systems, captured government regulators and regressive tax regimes.
This is one reason the US, Japan and Germany recovered so strongly after WW2.
It does. It also destroys cartels, rentiers, economic caste systems, captured government regulators and regressive tax regimes.
This is one reason the US, Japan and Germany recovered so strongly after WW2.
Destruction of capital is good for capitalists. Scarcity of capital leads to higher yields and positive yields are necessary for the accumulation of capital. Of if the return on physical capital were to fall below the interest rate offered for money, capitalists destroy capital as it is too abundant. I have a hunch that this is what ultimately drives countries to war but it can't explain all wars. Primarily those following economic depressions.
Yes, capitalists are insane.
Yes, capitalists are insane.
War is profitable because you are taking what someone else has built or what was already there and claiming it as your own. The costs are borne by the losers of the war. Either through loss of life or the loss of the seized capital.
Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources.
Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food.
I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA).
Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).
Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food.
I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA).
Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).
> Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence"
I guess we will have to unwind back to definitions because afaict, Colonialism was about domination of a people to extract their resources, by using the people as a disposable resource. I don't think the people being dominated depend(ed) on the colonisers.
I guess we will have to unwind back to definitions because afaict, Colonialism was about domination of a people to extract their resources, by using the people as a disposable resource. I don't think the people being dominated depend(ed) on the colonisers.
Upvoted because this made me laugh, but I do think focusing on "inter-" being bidirectional is splitting hairs here. I'd say most relevant examples of "external resource dependence" in this conversation thread will be asymmetrical.
No the point of interdependence is when its mutual. If it's about domination then sure you have one country invading another. When there is mutual interdependence then it's a massive disincentive for war.
Such a weird exchange. You used better terminology to explain what I meant ("resource interdependence") but still seem to have a different idea of what my point was.
Such a weird exchange. You used better terminology to explain what I meant ("resource interdependence") but still seem to have a different idea of what my point was.
In many cases colonialism involved making the colony dependent while extracting its resources or also as part of extracting its resources. Replacing food crops with cash crops and then importing food because it can be produced cheaper elsewhere, for example. Arguably this is even more so the case in post-colonial Africa given that regional development programmes and IMF loans usually emphasize exports (for supposedly high ROI) rather than self-sustainability.
I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment:
> Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources.
What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
> Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources.
What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war.
If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
It seems hard to me to quantify the number of wars prevented by any measure.
Interdependence of resources was the primary reason the EEC (later forming the EU) was created.
The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that.
There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo..
https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...
The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that.
There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo..
https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...
I think we're recognising that this strategy was a mistake and simply didn't work with Russia. If we trade with them, they'll become more like us, was the thinking, and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years.
> and the strategy behind the German government's policy towards Russia for 15 years.
Seeing what the likes of Gerhard Schröder is doing and given other economic incentives that favoured Germany I don't think that was the main idea behind it.
Seeing what the likes of Gerhard Schröder is doing and given other economic incentives that favoured Germany I don't think that was the main idea behind it.
Well, there's Schröder, of course, definitely a bit embarrassing now. But there were also those for whom this actually was a legitimate foreign policy strategy. I do believe DE's current president and former foreign policy minister, F.-W. Steinmeier, genuinely thought increasing business with Russia was the way to keep Europe's annoying neighbour civil.
Was Germany during this time not opposed to the idea of essentially group buying Russian gas rather than letting it be used as a political bat? If so, why?
I don't think it was a mistake. It just wasn't deep enough because it wasn't given enough time. 20-30 years is nothing.
> Really interesting from an ecological standpoint, but from a resource concern isn't the purpose of relying on each other (e.g. Russian gas), to link the economies so we have strong incentives to avoid wars?
That's at best a nice side-effect, if it actually works.
Nah, the main reason is that specialisation and trade is just so much more efficient. You get more from less.
That's at best a nice side-effect, if it actually works.
Nah, the main reason is that specialisation and trade is just so much more efficient. You get more from less.
Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now. But I don’t think so. Russia assaulted its neighbors several times before, so Putin had reasons to assume that the West would not react, just like before. The West neglected to follow through 15 years ago.
> Interdependence has been big since the 90s and seems to have been disproven somewhat by Russia now.
Hardly. It just hadn't on gone long enough and far enough. I'd say that the entire cause of the war is just that- that the interests of the two sets of elites didn't line up yet. They eventually would have because ownership would have become much more distributed as always happens as a result of neoliberalism.
Hardly. It just hadn't on gone long enough and far enough. I'd say that the entire cause of the war is just that- that the interests of the two sets of elites didn't line up yet. They eventually would have because ownership would have become much more distributed as always happens as a result of neoliberalism.
Interdependence can be complicated and assymetric. Russian gas dependency indeed provides a disincentive for Germany to support Ukraine against Russia, but at the same time it emboldened Russia because Putin likely believed the EU was weak due to its dependency on Russian gas.
The EU is weak due to Russian gas. We basically have to commit suicide to get out of this.
Every economic theory I've ever encountered fails to account for human stupidity.
Hmm, I would love for Sabine Hossenfelder [0] to take me through the numbers that claim my country needs 3.6 earths if we were to invite everyone to our lifestyle.
She did a very nice job changing my mind about nuclear power: [1]
[0]: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/p/about.html
[1]: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04/is-nuclear-power-g...
She did a very nice job changing my mind about nuclear power: [1]
[0]: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/p/about.html
[1]: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04/is-nuclear-power-g...
One of the numbers that is probably factored in is how much less efficient the food production would be if we adopted the food policy of one single country for the entire world.
While we currently use about ~50% of habitable land for food production, if we all adopted the diet in Bangladesh we would only need about 14%. If we all had the diet as in New Zealand we would need 190%. The dutch fall at 100% in the data that they published: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
Not exactly the 3.6 worlds listed in the link above, but diet is only one small part...
While we currently use about ~50% of habitable land for food production, if we all adopted the diet in Bangladesh we would only need about 14%. If we all had the diet as in New Zealand we would need 190%. The dutch fall at 100% in the data that they published: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets
Not exactly the 3.6 worlds listed in the link above, but diet is only one small part...
I didn't look into their calculation. But I tried their app to calculate my number and input no car use or public transport, inside multi-store building, no flying at all. Still I got 3.7 Earth, wtf.
I got a similar number and by far food was the big number, the past few months have been meat-heavy and I can see that reflected in the results. It alone was at 2.7.
My transportation is at 0.2.
Same thing with me living alone in an apartment caused my shelter score to grow to 0.7 from 0.4 if I was to claim that two people shared this apartment. Which kind of makes sense, many people living alone generally means more buildings have to be built and more energy be used to heat/cool and light them, and land have to be used to build them on.
My transportation is at 0.2.
Same thing with me living alone in an apartment caused my shelter score to grow to 0.7 from 0.4 if I was to claim that two people shared this apartment. Which kind of makes sense, many people living alone generally means more buildings have to be built and more energy be used to heat/cool and light them, and land have to be used to build them on.
All life seems to expand until it runs out of resources. Unless we learn to manipulate atoms better (and could we even do it more efficiently than nature?), conflict seems to be inevitable.
Making our current consumption more efficient won't help much; the existence of induced demand means that making consumption more efficient will just incentivize more consumption. What we need is less consumption, but when you try to tell people this the usual reaction is to wring their hands and tell you that such a thing is impossible, which is their way of tacitly admitting that they'd personally rather destroy the planet than reduce their own standard of living.
Why less consumption?
We are sitting on a huge ball of matter, and even consumption typically does not destroy any matter nor loses any to the void of space.
(The sun is a great source of energy. We also have nuclear fission and fusion, otherwise.)
We are sitting on a huge ball of matter, and even consumption typically does not destroy any matter nor loses any to the void of space.
(The sun is a great source of energy. We also have nuclear fission and fusion, otherwise.)
> even consumption typically does not destroy any matter nor loses any to the void of space.
Yeah if you scale back to the universe nothing ever changes and nothing matters at all.
If you start looking at air/soil/water pollution (which is only a fraction of our problems) it's clear that our ways of life are far from ideal. But sure, the atoms are still all there, I don't think that's the part that matters tho
Yeah if you scale back to the universe nothing ever changes and nothing matters at all.
If you start looking at air/soil/water pollution (which is only a fraction of our problems) it's clear that our ways of life are far from ideal. But sure, the atoms are still all there, I don't think that's the part that matters tho
Induced demand applies to "free" resources. If you tax resource consumption it will go down overall.
Yep. The thing that keeps any particular form of life in check are predators. A large amount of plant growth promotes herbivore populations, which promotes carnivore populations. If carnivores or herbivores overeat, they crash their own food supply, causing their own population to decline due to food scarcity. Ecosystems reach a form of homeostasis this way.
Humans have eliminated anything even close to being their predator at any significant scale, except our own behaviour. As a result, we run the risk of exhausting our own food (read: resource) supply.
Humans have eliminated anything even close to being their predator at any significant scale, except our own behaviour. As a result, we run the risk of exhausting our own food (read: resource) supply.
insufficient food or insufficient oxygen also do the job.
I'm assuming you include 'disease' as a predator (i.e. viral/bacterial/microscopic actors).
I'm assuming you include 'disease' as a predator (i.e. viral/bacterial/microscopic actors).
> except our own behaviour
Oh, well, no risk of that predator disappearing anytime soon, then...
Oh, well, no risk of that predator disappearing anytime soon, then...
Yes this is why humans must figure out how to keep themselves under control. If they don't then something else will do the job for us and we won't get a say.
"If everybody lived like people in the Netherlands, we would need 3.6 Earths. It would take 7.3 Netherlands to regenerate everything the country’s residents demand from nature."
I've heard this metric before and I find it believable but I'm curious of how it is calculated and what assumptions it's based on.
I've heard this metric before and I find it believable but I'm curious of how it is calculated and what assumptions it's based on.
You can find the Data & Methodology here:
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/
I'm curious what is the number for US then? 1000 Earths?
The US’ overshoot day is March 13, 19.73% into the year.
So a bit under 5.1 earthes.
Although interestingly because the USA are a large, sparse, and resource-rich country, it doesn’t live that much beyond its own means ecologically: 2.4 USA would be enough to fulfill its needs, whereas (per the above) the netherlands being a dense and resource-poor country it would need a bit more than 7 of itself.
So a bit under 5.1 earthes.
Although interestingly because the USA are a large, sparse, and resource-rich country, it doesn’t live that much beyond its own means ecologically: 2.4 USA would be enough to fulfill its needs, whereas (per the above) the netherlands being a dense and resource-poor country it would need a bit more than 7 of itself.
It's interesting to see population growth being listed as one of the prime factors, and that "Girl's Education" is proposed as a solution to this. I get why sex-ed and more widespread access/knowledge/acceptance of contraceptives might help the situation slightly, but aren't there much more deeply rooted problems than "girls don't know what a condom is"?
And further, it brings up interesting moral questions touching on eco-justified anti-natalism. Would it be morally justified to have a hundred kids?
EDIT: I largely take back the first paragraph, but I'll leave it for posterity. Helping girls to create a career for themselves probably has a larger impact on population growth. The anti-natalism thing is still interesting though.
And further, it brings up interesting moral questions touching on eco-justified anti-natalism. Would it be morally justified to have a hundred kids?
EDIT: I largely take back the first paragraph, but I'll leave it for posterity. Helping girls to create a career for themselves probably has a larger impact on population growth. The anti-natalism thing is still interesting though.
Girls education is not about sex-ed, it's so they can get a job and have opportunities other than being a mom.
You are right, I glossed over the description and saw mentions of sex-ed, but it's apparently just part of it. Thanks for the correction!
This. All nations have followed a population curve and with increased education and social mobility, the birth rate drops. It was only a couple of generations ago here in the UK that people had large families, and another couple of generations before that that women were allowed to vote.
Reading general comments on the web about the likes of the UK only have a tiny part to play and it being 'almost pointless' to combat climate change and conservation (vs larger population countries) seem to forget we've been industrialised and polluting for a quarter of a millenia. On the same token, the technology acquired over that time can solve the problem.
Overshoot day is a good reminder that we're still living above our means.
Reading general comments on the web about the likes of the UK only have a tiny part to play and it being 'almost pointless' to combat climate change and conservation (vs larger population countries) seem to forget we've been industrialised and polluting for a quarter of a millenia. On the same token, the technology acquired over that time can solve the problem.
Overshoot day is a good reminder that we're still living above our means.
Less kids in industrialized nations will never matter though, as the missing people will be imported. If eco-anti-natalism were really justified they would be anti-immigration.
We instead need to get sustainable holistically and need technological advancements and policy changes. It doesn't matter much if we are 6 or 8 billion (currently) or 11 billion (UN forecast for 2100) people on the planet if the smaller number already overshoots resources x-times.
We instead need to get sustainable holistically and need technological advancements and policy changes. It doesn't matter much if we are 6 or 8 billion (currently) or 11 billion (UN forecast for 2100) people on the planet if the smaller number already overshoots resources x-times.
> It doesn't matter much
But it does matter, because the world won't end on 2100, the world healing from current damage will take several centuries at minimum, the less damage that is done to the ecosphere during this period of heavy growth will help the recovery and healing process on the upcoming centuries
But it does matter, because the world won't end on 2100, the world healing from current damage will take several centuries at minimum, the less damage that is done to the ecosphere during this period of heavy growth will help the recovery and healing process on the upcoming centuries
If you follow Silvio Gesell's argument for a mother's dividend he argues that women are too reliant on men for income (remember this was at a time back when women didn't work at all) and therefore cannot choose to have less children.
Somewhat related, a constructive method for trying to fit inside the resource constraints:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society
But we don't have an energy constraint. We currently produce energy in silly polluting ways, but there's no reason we can't stop doing that and have lots more energy per person as well.
It is a goal of efficiency, not per se of net production
If you achieve these metrics while aiming to set up a renewables vertical, then you can overshoot and more easily at least metrics wise control co2 production
If you achieve these metrics while aiming to set up a renewables vertical, then you can overshoot and more easily at least metrics wise control co2 production
Am I the only one seeing tons of raw code on this webpage? For example,
[divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][nectar_btn size=”jumbo” button_style=”regular” button_color_2=”Accent-Color” icon_family=”none” url=”https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/webinar-dutch-overshoo... text=”DUTCH OVERSHOOT DAY WEBINAR” css_animation=”bounce” margin_left=”40″]
What’s the deal?
[divider line_type=”No Line” custom_height=”40″][nectar_btn size=”jumbo” button_style=”regular” button_color_2=”Accent-Color” icon_family=”none” url=”https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/webinar-dutch-overshoo... text=”DUTCH OVERSHOOT DAY WEBINAR” css_animation=”bounce” margin_left=”40″]
What’s the deal?
wordpress shortcodes not rendering properly
This exercise of "if everyone/everything was like X" is very fallacious. There is no path that takes the current world we are living in all the way to this simulated reality that makes no sense. "If everyone were like Elon Musk..." reads like a start of a joke or a horror story, but never a feasible reality.
The truth is that, once resources become scarce, various optimization mechanisms kick in. For example, Israel produces a lot of food in the desert thanks to various water usage optimization techniques.
Human civilization uses a tiny percentage of the total energy delivered to Earth. This again is tiny percentage of power generated by Sun. There are abundant resources all around us that we simply need to learn how to effectively utilise. This is not sci-fi stuff, these are "merely" engineering problems.
The challenge is to get to that "post-scarcity" (or whatever you call it) future sustainably, without killing ourselves or making Earth a toxic hellhole. This requires cooperation, but you won't get that by going around and claiming falsehoods or persuading people with fallacies.
The truth is that, once resources become scarce, various optimization mechanisms kick in. For example, Israel produces a lot of food in the desert thanks to various water usage optimization techniques.
Human civilization uses a tiny percentage of the total energy delivered to Earth. This again is tiny percentage of power generated by Sun. There are abundant resources all around us that we simply need to learn how to effectively utilise. This is not sci-fi stuff, these are "merely" engineering problems.
The challenge is to get to that "post-scarcity" (or whatever you call it) future sustainably, without killing ourselves or making Earth a toxic hellhole. This requires cooperation, but you won't get that by going around and claiming falsehoods or persuading people with fallacies.
> There are abundant resources all around us that we simply need to learn how to effectively utilise. This is not sci-fi stuff, these are "merely" engineering problems.
I think the "we simply" is the least simple part of it all. We act as if everything is just a matter of time and engineering, but nothing assures that, and even if it does we're still running against time. This isn't a CIV game, we don't know if these hypothetical saving techs will ever exists.
It's pretty much all sci fi for now, and without intent it will still be sci fi. There is no law of the universe that guarantees what we call "progress" actually makes us move towards a better future. You can call it "tech progress", "engineering progress", "discoveries", the wording doesn't matter. Lead paint was progress, freon was progress, gas powered vehicles was progress, &c. Anything that's new is called progress and only decades later we can really assess what was beneficial or not. (cue electric personal vehicles)
In French we have an idiom: "fuite en avant"; "Not facing one's problems, running away from one's problems without solving them, or continuing a problematic action without considering its future consequences" and I feel like it can be applied to tech very easily, especially when the main technocrats argument is "we'll do more of X, Y, Z and eventually we'll find a solution"
I think the "we simply" is the least simple part of it all. We act as if everything is just a matter of time and engineering, but nothing assures that, and even if it does we're still running against time. This isn't a CIV game, we don't know if these hypothetical saving techs will ever exists.
It's pretty much all sci fi for now, and without intent it will still be sci fi. There is no law of the universe that guarantees what we call "progress" actually makes us move towards a better future. You can call it "tech progress", "engineering progress", "discoveries", the wording doesn't matter. Lead paint was progress, freon was progress, gas powered vehicles was progress, &c. Anything that's new is called progress and only decades later we can really assess what was beneficial or not. (cue electric personal vehicles)
In French we have an idiom: "fuite en avant"; "Not facing one's problems, running away from one's problems without solving them, or continuing a problematic action without considering its future consequences" and I feel like it can be applied to tech very easily, especially when the main technocrats argument is "we'll do more of X, Y, Z and eventually we'll find a solution"
I don't think the point is to describe a probable future where everyone lives like the Dutch. The whole point is that it wouldn't be possible.
It's just an easy to understand illustration of how our current civilization is largely resting on unsustainable foundations. Finding solutions to the engineering and societal challenges that you mention seems to be the goal of the project.
It's just an easy to understand illustration of how our current civilization is largely resting on unsustainable foundations. Finding solutions to the engineering and societal challenges that you mention seems to be the goal of the project.
I don't see the goals stated anywhere. I see solutions, but they have implied assumptions with an agenda. And how do you evaluate a particular solution against the alternatives without any goals or metrics?
I can definitely get behind some of the solutions they propose! But it is important to give a truthful rationale for these. Otherwise this is a slippery slope, like lying to your children about medicine because they will get better if they take it.
I stand by my assertion that the methodology they picked ("pick a subset of civilization, make a prediction as if everything was it") is fallacious. Imagine a sustainable, closed-loop civilization, satisfying all the goals you can dream of. It is inevitable that not every part of the system will be balanced when looked at in isolation. If you are allowed to cherry-pick a subset of that civilization and scale it arbitrarily, you are guaranteed to arrive at the same unreasonable conclusion as they give us.
To make it less abstract, let us consider nature itself. There are siberian tigers which eat 9 kg of food a day. This is a lot! If every animal were to eat that much, all animals would quickly starve. Clearly, nature is not sustainable!
I can definitely get behind some of the solutions they propose! But it is important to give a truthful rationale for these. Otherwise this is a slippery slope, like lying to your children about medicine because they will get better if they take it.
I stand by my assertion that the methodology they picked ("pick a subset of civilization, make a prediction as if everything was it") is fallacious. Imagine a sustainable, closed-loop civilization, satisfying all the goals you can dream of. It is inevitable that not every part of the system will be balanced when looked at in isolation. If you are allowed to cherry-pick a subset of that civilization and scale it arbitrarily, you are guaranteed to arrive at the same unreasonable conclusion as they give us.
To make it less abstract, let us consider nature itself. There are siberian tigers which eat 9 kg of food a day. This is a lot! If every animal were to eat that much, all animals would quickly starve. Clearly, nature is not sustainable!
The problem is that all tigers want steak, but only a fourth of them can afford it. That number is increasing as the tigers get richer in general. And the steak industry is ruining the world.
The price of steak will go up until demand equals supply.
(And there will be plenty of incentives to come up with cheaper steaks or steak alternatives.)
(And there will be plenty of incentives to come up with cheaper steaks or steak alternatives.)
> The whole point is that it wouldn't be possible.
Why so?
Life needs energy, we can harness energy better to produce engineered food and desalt water.
Why so?
Life needs energy, we can harness energy better to produce engineered food and desalt water.
I'm not referring to quality of life, but "living" in the broader sense including the enabling infrastructure and resource dependencies as they stand today.
ok but technological evolution follow the same curve. We would not be able to sustain current population with 1900 technologies. It's very strange to completely discard technology evolution in this equation.
if you harness too much of it, waste heat boils you off anyway.
This website reads like it was generated by an AI.
The Haber process and modern agriculture feed us all, and cheaply. We get five times more milk per cow and eight times more corn per acre than we did a century ago. We synthesize fertilizer out of thin air instead of scraping bird shit off of remote islands.
On top of that, human fertility rates have dropped far, far below replacement in substantial parts of the world, and when the developing world is developed, I suspect they also will see declining population. Each person needs slightly more than one child for us to have a stable population. So, a fertility rate of ~2.1 (2 children per woman). In the US it's 1.7, in Germany it's 1.54, in Japan it's 1.36, and in Korea it's 0.94. China: 1.7, Brazil: 1.72, India: 2.2 (just above replacement, and dropping)
We can outsmart, and have repeatedly outsmarted, all sorts of potential disasters.
We can't ignore our problems, but neither have we met with any sort of defeat.