[projektfu]

Innovation is what brought us to this point. The techno-optimistic viewpoint such as yours is incredibly pessimistic. Rather than believe that humans can engage each other to create cultures that fix these problems, you fantasize about future magic that will remove the need for human input. New technology won’t fix the underlying problems.

- Jevon’s paradox. Much of our heavy use of energy is because of increasing energy efficiency

- population growth. We continue to increase the food supply to increase the already ridiculous population size.

- materialism. In the absence of a culture for many people to fit in, we demand toys, gadgets, international travel, non seasonal food, etc.

- relentless pursuit of economic growth at all costs. The belief that the only solution to the distribution problems in our capitalist economy is to grow.

[syshum]

So then you support either Genocide to reduce the population, or complete economic collapse to reduce materialism.

i.e the "Electric prices have to sky rocket to save the planet" which impacts the poorest families the most and will cause massive human suffering.

So you want suffering today to prevent the possibility of suffering in 100 years completely discounting any possibility of the technological solution

Sorry I can not get behind that, but if you believe in that so much why don't you start with your own life, stop using Computers, cars, electricity, Refrigeration, and every other modern life convenience.

Go to a pure 10,000 years ago life style, no medicine, no power, and only food you can find or grow with your own hands no machines, no modern fabric's.. nothing

[NeedMoreTea]

That's a completely false dichotomy.

Electric prices could sky rocket when generated from fossil sources, and be left alone or get cheaper from neutral sources. Which one is the poor family going to sign up for?

If that doesn't go far enough, simply take the proceeds of the carbon tax or levy and use some of it to assist the poorest -- to insulate, to afford generation until the country has enough sustainable sources, or more generally just to rebalance the impact.

It is perfectly possible to have a developed, sustainable life. Perhaps without monthly flights, or the worst of consumer excess and unrepairable shite, but something we'd all recognise as a modern, comfortable, developed life. Government can help with public transport, regulations of fuel use, bike lanes and all the rest.

It's perfectly possible to educate and reduce birth rates, potentially globally without need of genocide, death squads or even one child policies. We have to do it at some point, or we'll end up with everyone packed in like sardines and nowhere left to grow food. Then there would be a mass die off... Far better to promote it as policy and aim for a sustainable amount, low enough that there's headroom for any unforeseen crises, and to keep a decent amount of wilderness, forest and wildlife that everyone enjoys for a holiday.

Bombing ourselves back to 10,000 years ago is pure hyperbole.

[projektfu]

Genocide is mass murder. You seem to be saying that the normal process of people dying is a form of genocide. I disagree. We can reduce our birth rate to below the natural rate of death and start fixing the population problem. We do that naturally by reducing food production. Just take more land out of production, reduce the amount of water poured into deserts, reduce subsidies for quantity. There are lots of options.

Let me ask you this, is it humane to do things to increase a population to unsustainable sizes such that they collapse in famine? When for whatever reason, war, interruptions in trade, etc, thousands die of starvation? Why is that ok in your mind?

Did I say electric prices must skyrocket? If you don’t believe these problems can be fixed with gradual change, then you don’t truly believe in the techno utopia.