We show that, with reasonable consumption rate estimates, that (1) power is not a strong constraint on the lunar population but (2) the roughly 1 billion ton...
That formerly perfect environment could not support the current human population. And I’m not saying we’re doing a good job in terms of long term planning here. I’m merely pointing out that we have the ability to shape our environment, and that’s what allowed for our civilization to exist in the first place.
Great at shaping our own environment for the immediate stuff like shelter, temperature, food, logistics. But the more foundational long-term stuff, like an atmosphere or a local ecology? We don’t have a great track record.
To be fair, there was no evolutionary driver for that kind of large scale and long term planning. Humans evolved in an environment where it was important to prioritize immediate survival over long horizon goals. So, we’re notoriously bad at making any sacrifices in the short term for the benefit of the long term. And on top of it all, capitalism makes the whole problem a whole lot worse by rewarding the most destructive and wasteful behaviors.
I see, yes I see where you are coming from. On the other hand, I was thinking of climate change, plastic in the oceans, PFAS and so on. Human products that are damaging the ecosystem around us and that will mostly hit humanity in the back of its neck in the near future. So we DO shape our environment- but not to our ACTUAL needs.
That’s just a contradiction of our current mode of production. The negative effect is sure there, but it’s outweighed by the positive outcomes. This gigantic mechanized monolithic production system that turns the whole humanity into one big voracious machine is what eventually will allow us to fully decentralise the way we produce things while keeping the automation and thus avoid the destruction we’ve been causing for so long.
Think of this: you don’t need packaging if you consume in the same place where you produce. You can also much more easily recycle used materials if you don’t need them to travel for thousands miles and can instead use them right where you are. If you use local small and natural sources of energy instead of burning millions of tons of coal, you also don’t pollute the enviranment as much. All of this will only be possible thanks to this destructive phase we’re currently in. So ultimately we do cater our actual needs - somewhat contradictory at times, but still.
That’s a lot of wishful thinking to digest ;-). There’s zero evidence to support this vision , and human egoism (wars, revenue-focus, …) seem to be IMHO completely ignored. I witnessed these type of predictions in the 70s, 90s, 10s… they never materialized.
The ongoing automation is the evidence. The trend is to fully automate the whole production chain and that will lead to decentralisation, because centralisation only makes sense with human labour.
Human egoism isn’t bad in itself. The problem is that it conflicts with altruism. That’s where it gets destructive. But this can be solved. If everyone can automatically produce what they need themselves, there’s no more competing for who’s going to be the one providing and the one taking. The roles merge. Egoism and altruism become the same thing and neither stays destructive.
But that’s all theory. Fact is that automation costs energy, and energy creates CO2. So climate change is the force that works against your plan, and since we are heading to 2.8C, time is quickly running out. In addition, trends such as urbanization (which has been taking place for about 5000 years), the rise of fascism etc also don’t seem to be in favor. Taken together, humanity may very well collapse first. So instead of working on your dream, become active; vote, protect.
Fact is that automation costs energy, and energy creates CO2.
I’ve talked about this above:
“If you use local small and natural sources of energy instead of burning millions of tons of coal, you also don’t pollute the environment as much.”
Burning isn’t the only possible source of energy and it’s really effective only with centralisation. Some niche attempts at creating means of local power generation already exist. For example, getting power from living plants. I think switching to such decentralised and eco-friendly forms of energy production is the solution to climate change.
Fascism is another manifestation of “human egoism” which I adressed above. Urbanization doesn’t exist on its own either. It is a consequence of the centralised mode of production, which to my mind, as I said earlier, is something we are going to move away from.
Voting and being politically active isn’t going to invent and adopt new means of decentralised production. It is us, regular citizens, who should do it.
The whole reason humans spread all across the globe is due to our ability to shape our environment to our needs.
Currently we are destroying a formerly perfect environment.
That formerly perfect environment could not support the current human population. And I’m not saying we’re doing a good job in terms of long term planning here. I’m merely pointing out that we have the ability to shape our environment, and that’s what allowed for our civilization to exist in the first place.
Great at shaping our own environment for the immediate stuff like shelter, temperature, food, logistics. But the more foundational long-term stuff, like an atmosphere or a local ecology? We don’t have a great track record.
To be fair, there was no evolutionary driver for that kind of large scale and long term planning. Humans evolved in an environment where it was important to prioritize immediate survival over long horizon goals. So, we’re notoriously bad at making any sacrifices in the short term for the benefit of the long term. And on top of it all, capitalism makes the whole problem a whole lot worse by rewarding the most destructive and wasteful behaviors.
Do we shape our environment to our needs?
We very obviously do, most of the human population lives in cities and wouldn’t make it through a single week in the wild.
I see, yes I see where you are coming from. On the other hand, I was thinking of climate change, plastic in the oceans, PFAS and so on. Human products that are damaging the ecosystem around us and that will mostly hit humanity in the back of its neck in the near future. So we DO shape our environment- but not to our ACTUAL needs.
That’s just a contradiction of our current mode of production. The negative effect is sure there, but it’s outweighed by the positive outcomes. This gigantic mechanized monolithic production system that turns the whole humanity into one big voracious machine is what eventually will allow us to fully decentralise the way we produce things while keeping the automation and thus avoid the destruction we’ve been causing for so long.
Think of this: you don’t need packaging if you consume in the same place where you produce. You can also much more easily recycle used materials if you don’t need them to travel for thousands miles and can instead use them right where you are. If you use local small and natural sources of energy instead of burning millions of tons of coal, you also don’t pollute the enviranment as much. All of this will only be possible thanks to this destructive phase we’re currently in. So ultimately we do cater our actual needs - somewhat contradictory at times, but still.
That’s a lot of wishful thinking to digest ;-). There’s zero evidence to support this vision , and human egoism (wars, revenue-focus, …) seem to be IMHO completely ignored. I witnessed these type of predictions in the 70s, 90s, 10s… they never materialized.
The ongoing automation is the evidence. The trend is to fully automate the whole production chain and that will lead to decentralisation, because centralisation only makes sense with human labour.
Human egoism isn’t bad in itself. The problem is that it conflicts with altruism. That’s where it gets destructive. But this can be solved. If everyone can automatically produce what they need themselves, there’s no more competing for who’s going to be the one providing and the one taking. The roles merge. Egoism and altruism become the same thing and neither stays destructive.
But that’s all theory. Fact is that automation costs energy, and energy creates CO2. So climate change is the force that works against your plan, and since we are heading to 2.8C, time is quickly running out. In addition, trends such as urbanization (which has been taking place for about 5000 years), the rise of fascism etc also don’t seem to be in favor. Taken together, humanity may very well collapse first. So instead of working on your dream, become active; vote, protect.
I’ve talked about this above: “If you use local small and natural sources of energy instead of burning millions of tons of coal, you also don’t pollute the environment as much.”
Burning isn’t the only possible source of energy and it’s really effective only with centralisation. Some niche attempts at creating means of local power generation already exist. For example, getting power from living plants. I think switching to such decentralised and eco-friendly forms of energy production is the solution to climate change.
Fascism is another manifestation of “human egoism” which I adressed above. Urbanization doesn’t exist on its own either. It is a consequence of the centralised mode of production, which to my mind, as I said earlier, is something we are going to move away from.
Voting and being politically active isn’t going to invent and adopt new means of decentralised production. It is us, regular citizens, who should do it.
Sure, we create a lot of problems in our shaping of the environment, and we tend to prioritize short term needs over long term ones.
Here I go watching Wanderers again…
I love that short clip.