[palata]

Well, productivity today is actually the biggest problem humanity is facing, if you think about it: productivity is directly linked to fossil fuels, which are not unlimited (that will soon be a problem) and also are the cause of climate change (that will soon be a problem too).

So I could ask it differently: why would you want anyone to spend a lot of effort keeping us in the direction that will globally make our society collapse?

[nurettin]

The only two choices aren't "status-quo vs mediocrity", that's just a false dichotomy. Why can't people invent clean bio-energy, low-powered computation, space travel, cure for all kinds of cancer, or free desalination? Does every invention need to burn society down?

[palata]

> Does every invention need to burn society down?

Apparently, yes. That's called "rebound effect". I don't know of an invention that did not suffer from it.

5G is more efficient than 4G for the same usage, but it allows us to use more, so we will use more. Reusable rockets are more efficient, but they will allow us to launch a lot more rockets, so we will.

We don't know how to constraint ourselves. That's probably also why we won't be able to voluntarily degrow, and therefore we will just continue until it all collapses.

[nurettin]

I don't see a reason to believe this. A lot of my examples went unaddressed.

[palata]

> A lot of my examples went unaddressed.

You mean the "why can't people invent <place here some cool technology we don't have>" part?

Not sure what to say to that, to be honest... would be cool to live in peace in a sustainable way, that's for sure. But I don't see that as an argument.

[nurettin]

Okay, I don't really see much of a point in arguing for the tech we do have that doesn't cause any society to collapse that you are oblivious to.