[ColdStream]

There are some reasonable books by William T Volleman called 'Carbon Ideologies' it is all about Nuclear and Coal power. Regardless of that, they are written focusing on the people that would be reading those books in a few hundred years time. The justification being that those that read it today already understand the issues. As such they are focused on a world that is deeply resource depleted and much hotter.

But it is the opening chapter that is very explicit in trying to highlight how most people live today. It isn't that we don't know what is happening or that we do not care, it is just that we have needs and wants that unfortunately have long term blow back. We are just trying to take care of others, but that is leading down a less desirable path.

I thought it was a great message that needs to sent to the future.

The aquifers are being drained, but it was being done to feed the people. Yes, it could have been handled much better but that core driving force behind it will probably be the same in hundred of years from now.

If that message isn't sent forwards, the stories that will be made in our place will not be very kind to us.

If that matters or not, that is up to you to decide. And that is the whole debate on 'What is legacy?'.

[rho138]

We shouldn’t be thought of kindly. We’re essentially post food scarcity in the US and children are still sent to school starving. Not only did we fail the here and now, but we’ve failed our future brothers and sisters.

[voakbasda]

The hilarity of being post food scarcity when the quality of food in stores has declined precipitously both in terms of nutrient density and taste. Most of the processed food contains high fructose corn syrup, sketchy preservatives, and worse. Even if people think we “succeeded” on this front, the truth is that we have failed. The ultimate consequences of our failure have yet to play out.

[rexpop]

Both are true: modern food systems can improve availability and shelf-stability while still degrading average nutritional quality.

[ColdStream]

I have stripped out a lot of nuance in how it is portrayed in the book, but I do completely agree with you.

[basilgohar]

I disagree strongly and push back on this framing. It's technically correct but it subtracts the huge factor that maximizing short term profit plays, and couching that in "feeding the people" papers over that.

Just feeding people sufficiently, even at a high standard, wouldn't lead to the resource depletion and waste we are seeing today. But doing so at record profit levels does.

[ColdStream]

It is a key component of the first book that basically says, if a corporation can take a short cut to save money, they probably will.

It was framed as the refusal to move the diesel backup at Fukushima nuclear plant to save some money, but it does become a reoccurring theme through out the entire book.

[jahnu]

Exactly. It’s been done to enable luxury.

[BobbyTables2]

Quite true.

Our own individual ancestors were not perfect people. But we only exist today because they survived.

[avazhi]

Why would any of us care what people 200 or 500 years in the future think of us?

Peak irrelevance.

[ColdStream]

That is a much broader question, as I stated with the idea of legacy.

The whole do things to help others even if you do not directly see the benefit. The broader sense of altruism that many tend enact.