[tomp]

The world will not end, just change. Maybe for the better? E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again!

We know what needs to be done. Build nuclear! But unfortunately anti-growth “green” parties and activists (like you I presume) have been pushing anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, stopping progress.

Nothing can be done on an individual level, so quitting your job or not having kids is completely pointless. Only top-down action (less regulation) can solve the problem. So vote!

[rajanaccros]

I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction, wet bulb temperatures and not enough power to cool will affect and kill millions of people N/S 30deg of the equator.

My alarmist talking points it to actually engage people like you and who have similar thoughts that think they can't do anything. You absolutely can. And it is time to be alarmist. Not being so is not working.

My point is to work to restructure society at any level you can, to educate, and to stop this myth of perpetual growth GDP as the only indicator of success. It is killing everything.

> E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again!

We have a perfectly good world as is, and you want to gamble everything on this?

[tomp]

Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C. Actually even with solar we can do that (it’s night power that would remain a problem).

No solution that requires degrowth, less energy, lower GDP or lower human quality of life, is acceptable to me. Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death.

Alarmism and promoting degrowth and/or stupid policies (paper straws, anyone?) just further increase the public backlash against “green” movement, so I guess it’s a good thing?!

[palata]

> Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C.

You don't get it. We are heading towards a world where, on a very big part of the planet (around the equator), it will not be possible for humans to survive outdoors (at some temperature and humidity, sweating does not work anymore, you don't regulate your temperature, and so you die).

> Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death.

You are describing "forced" degrowth (what will happen if we don't prepare our society to handle it). The idea is to plan it, and have priorities (so that maybe you can't take the plane every two weeks, but you can still eat and survive, hopefully without a civil war).

[rajanaccros]

You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is technical, as many naive people believe, but will not solve the issue. We have planetary boundaries and "renewables" and nuclear will not solve those issues. More AC, means for CFCs that will still impact the environment. More growth means more extraction for wind/solar and other technologies that will impact the environment. These are not solutions to our issue.

Nothing else is working. Alarmism is supposed to get people to actually act, because otherwise they take your (ignorant) positions on sitting back and keep growing. The next idea you have for a great startup, a way to make money, something for your individual advancement, please go back to imperative #1 -- nothing is going to matter as we kill everything on this planet.

People become really defensive when they hear they have to change due to climate catastrophe. I get it. It's not fair. But it is necessary. If people read the alarmist language (not just from posters like me, but alarmist language from scientists who tend to use neutral language in their reports), then they will have to deal with the fact that the have a direct causal link to our children's and the next generation's death due to their inaction. At that point, the person is not just ignorant, but sociopathic. If we continue on this path, it will be humanity's ruin.

[tomp]

Technology literally means getting more value from the same amount of inputs. Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them. Not to mention offworld resources.

Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere, and how to spread good agritech to poor, non-democratic countries (hint: Europe produces tons of food sustainably using minimal resources, and is actually regrowing forests!).

But I'd bet on further technological development and economic growth any time, my own life and that of my child(ren), rather than embrace degrowth and the associated (19th century) poverty, hunger, child mortality, etc. that comes with it.

Degrowth is literally murder.

[palata]

> Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them.

Just check how it goes with fossil fuels :-). Spoiler: definitely not unlimited, definitely becoming a problem (that Europe can feel economically since 2008).

> Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere

Yep, "just a thing" that makes the difference between life and death of hundreds of millions of humans. And we don't have any serious technological solution right now (if you don't believe it, ask yourself: are you an expert in such a solution, or do you just have faith that "someone else" will find it?). Degrowth is the only solution when you don't have that kind of faith.

[rajanaccros]

I think we are talking past each other on what is meant by degrowth. Degrowth means not tying the success of nations and people to that of GDP YoY. It is not sustainable. What I mean by degrowth is removing the growth imperative from economy and switching to a sustainable economy. The studies have shown (referenced in Hickel's book) that material consumption goes up with technological innovation. This means that the more efficient are technology becomes we don't use it to sustatain, we us it to grow. More products, more material extraction, more profits, more reinvestment - all to grow. Degrowth means to move to a sustainable economy while preventing the death of humans and other biodiversity. But we have to rethink things that are "not to be questioned" (eg. capitalism, Platonic dualism, etc).

So I am confused by the meaning of degrowth you are referencing because the definition I am using is the antithesis of murder. We want to save the planet, and hence all life that exists within it. So I hope that comes across, because degrowth does not mean collapse of materials needed to sustain life, but it does re-imagigening the profit above all mindset that is de facto in our economies.

[tomp]

The problem is you swallowed the “capitalism is evil” pill and now you’re confusing everything.

But it’s not complicated. GDP is literally ”the total sum of what humans value” (per year). GDP growth is “creating more of what humans value”, and profit is “reward for those who create value”. You can split what humans value into essentials (food, sex, medicine, security, …) and non-essentials (nice car, nice house, nice vacations, nice nature, …). The basic premise of Western civilisation (i.e. the most well-functioning society we’ve invented so far) is to satisfy the essentials of almost everyone and allow many people to satisfy many of their non-essentials.

> More products, more material extraction, more profits, more reinvestment - all to grow.

Sounds like a good thing! More people getting their needs met.

As it turns out, people do value nature etc but only after their basic needs are fulfilled. So the best way to protect nature is to create companies that make profit satisfying essential needs and higher-priority non-essential needs, so people start valuing nature etc.

Which isn’t to say capitalism is without problems - e.g. tragedy of the commons, principal-agent problem, negative externalities - but they should be solved within capitalism (maybe with better regulation or more aligned market incentives).

But if you support “degrowth” you literally support people living worse lives (less non-essentials) and dying (less essentials). And if you don’t, well, your movement needs better marketing.

[clx75]

Based on my personal experience with psychedelics I used to think that these medicines could be a tool to wake people up. Actually, after seeing what else has been tried and failed, I came to the conclusion that psychedelics are the _only_ reliable tool in this arena because of their power. I sincerely thought that psychedelics could make people reconnect to the reality of how things really are. That if they wake up to reality, they would 1.) freak out about our situation and then have an incentive to restrain from doing the "bad" things and 2.) rediscover this deep connection with Nature which is the only viable basis for a harmonious relationship with it.

Unfortunately during the decades I lost my faith even in this. Apparently to have this kind of experience on a psychedelic it's not enough to just dose someone. Of 1000 people taking psychedelics, maybe 1 gets such an experience. And although the scientists at Johns Hopkins try to figure out how to increase that percentage, it's still not enough.

Nowadays I tend to think that all of this is a God's dream and this God for some reason does not want to wake up too soon from its dream.

[palata]

> Maybe for the better?

Eventually, maybe. For most species, humanity collapsing is definitely a good thing.

Now in your lifetime... I would rather bet for mass migrations, famines, wars and global instability.

But yeah, voting is important, because given how most people vote, they are not aware of the problem.

[omegabravo]

I'm confused how _only less regulation_ can solve the problem. Famously, companies love less regulation so they can do what they want without consequence.

Good regulation, is quite effective. Just hard.

[jamilton]

How could less regulation possibly help? Negative externalities need to be captured, how else can that be done but with more regulation?