|
|
|
|
|
by gwicks56
1418 days ago
|
|
With enough energy we can pull CO2 out of the air, and turn into a myriad of useful things[1], not just making $$ off the things produced, but also lowering CO2 concentrations. The biggest cost input is energy itself. We need MORE energy, not less, to solve the problems we have created.
Technology got us into this mess, and only new better technology can get us out of it, asking people to live worse lives just seems to me to be a political non starter. 1 (one example) :https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-... |
|
I agree that if you ask people to live a "worse" life for the sake of future generations most people are too selfish and insecure to cooperate. My disagreement is that it is necessarily worse.
If you factor out agriculture, essential goods transport and building maintenance, which admittedly are big factors, then a period of zero growth, a life with less gratuitous material goods, helicopters, jet-skis, and a tenth gold iPhone is a hardly undesirable except to a few,
A life where I can walk to work, shop and meet people in my local community, take vacations within 200 miles by public transport, eat locally grown food, and where we all spend much less screen time plugged into the Matrix is a much better life as far as I can see.
Mostly, I think it will be worse for all the people who want to sell things that nobody really needs.
If this is to succeed, through choice and markets, without some sort of communist World Economic Forum telling us we'll have to "own nothing" then the most important thing we can sell is a mature vision of a better life. Therefore we ought to stop equating reduction of consumption with a "worse" life.