Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 23throwaway23 2186 days ago
To highlight some important elements of their work:

A group of researchers, led by a UNSW sustainability scientist, have reviewed existing academic discussions on the link between wealth, economy and associated impacts, reaching a clear conclusion: technology will only get us so far when working towards sustainability—we need far-reaching lifestyle changes and different economic paradigms.

In their review, published today in Nature Communications and entitled Scientists' Warning on Affluence, the researchers have summarized the available evidence, identifying possible solution approaches.

"Recent scientists' warnings have done a great job at describing the many perils our natural world is facing through crises in climate, biodiversity and food systems, to name but a few," says lead author Professor Tommy Wiedmann from UNSW Engineering.

"However, none of these warnings has explicitly considered the role of growth-oriented economies and the pursuit of affluence. In our scientists' warning, we identify the underlying forces of overconsumption and spell out the measures that are needed to tackle the overwhelming 'power' of consumption and the economic growth paradigm—that's the gap we fill.

"The key conclusion from our review is that we cannot rely on technology alone to solve existential environmental problems—like climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution—but that we also have to change our affluent lifestyles and reduce overconsumption, in combination with structural change."

2 comments

So there's a big question here (beyond the obvious, existential one) for the VC and startup community. What role do we play in all of this? Can we play a constructive role? What might that look like?
The picture isn't really so good for a lot of these startups, no.

You know it in your heart.

It's very unclear how an ethical person is supposed to be behave. If we believe that this huge machine is destroying the planet, surely we should stop participating in it - and yet if we do that, we become unable to support ourselves.

I compensate by trying to consume as little in my personal life, and trying to get jobs that aren't unethical.

In fact, the researchers say the world's affluent citizens are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer conditions.

"Consumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant—and the strongest accelerator—of increased global environmental and social impacts," co-author Lorenz Keysser from ETH Zurich says.

"Current discussions on how to address the ecological crises within science, policy making and social movements need to recognize the responsibility of the most affluent for these crises." ... "The structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies leads to decision makers being locked into bolstering economic growth, and inhibiting necessary societal changes," Prof Wiedmann says.

"So, we have to get away from our obsession with economic growth—we really need to start managing our economies in a way that protects our climate and natural resources, even if this means less, no or even negative growth.

These quotes taken from: https://phys.org/news/2020-06-overconsumption-growth-economy...