189
Q: “Are we doomed?” A: “We would be, if not for the amazing developments in renewable energy.”
(powering-the-planet.ghost.io)
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
189 points (91.3% liked)
Technology
59769 readers
3616 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So we're still doomed, then? I'm sorry, I'm sure lots of this is meant to be incredibly uplifting, but it reads an awful lot like "green is cheaper, trust the market! Numbers go up, up, up!" when you consider that:
The important thing to note here being that, even if a brighter future awaits beyond, the worst is yet to come. I'll get back to this in a moment.
Yes, that the science to save the human race exists is nice. Really nice. There was a period in which I genuinely wondered if there was any chance humans wouldn't extinct themselves. But that was years ago. I've since learned that "saving the human species" is a terrible, disgusting metric. The future of what I consider humanity remains grim.
Now, if the worst is yet to come, and we can't yet even accurately predict how much worse the worst really will be, take a moment to reflect on this: which part of humanity is better prepared to weather the incoming changes, and which part is more likely to be labeled "climate change refugees?"
Humanity isn't only the richest. It's not merely the wealthiest and most developed nations. Humanity is also a lot of people who will suffer, people who I'm unconvinced will receive the aid and support they need and deserve.
Because the root cause of these issues, the systems that govern our society, have led us here and are unlikely to go away anytime soon. Because these systems have shown incredible prowess at protecting select groups of people from certain issues, while failing at completely fixing them, despite not struggling due to a lack of resources and continuous technological advances. If the pattern holds...
Then humans will survive. Many will live well.
Humanity is still pretty screwed.
TL;DR:
"The tools are here, we'll be alright, just need political will!"
Who's we? And if getting politicians to do what's right was that simple, we wouldn't be in this mess.
P.S. I'm not advocating for doom here, I just wish more people understood that Americans buying cheap Chinese electric cars won't save the people living nearby the mine in Africa where the cobalt for those batteries was extracted.
With respect, I think you're projecting a discussion with a different person onto this article.
You're right, the climate is going to get worse before it gets better. You're right, the impacts of climate change will disproportionately affect poor and underdeveloped areas. We can't make that go away with positive thinking, and it's not enough for humans as a species to survive, we need to focus on reducing suffering while we're turning the ship.
What I took away from this article is that the market forces for cheap renewable power and the means to store it are now stronger than the forces for CO2 emitting power. And those forces are moving faster than predicted. That's good, and it's ok to talk about something good when it's true!
People who have been paying attention and care about others have good reason to be wary about the narrative "oh, everything is going to be fine" because that's what industry and politicians have been saying for a long time instead of taking needed action.
We're at a point where most people recognize climate change is real, and they can see it's effects. We're also at a point where many people don't have hope for the situation. It's dangerous to tell people "shit's fucked and there's nothing you can do about it" because they might believe you and do nothing.
Which is why I'm not doing that.
I don't think you disagree with the parts where I say people will suffer.
I don't think so? My comment is generally aimed at "the situation is grim, but tech just got awesome, so let's save the planet people!" optimism-filled pieces, much like this one. Forgive me if I come across as affronted when, as temperatures reach new and dangerous heights in certain regions, I am put out seeing someone say market forces are on the cusp of saving us.
It's nice that you're hopeful, but green energy in capitalism isn't enough. We need degrowth or a revolution to actually save not just humanity, but the planet as well.
Expecting a revolution to solve your problems is a bad joke.
Degrowth is coming. Birth rate is below replacement in essentially all developed countries and is steeply dropping in less developed ones as well. We’re on track for population to level off and start dropping in only a few decades, as current larger generations die off.
We just need to hope that “natural” depopulation isn’t too late for addressing climate change.
But I’d argue it’s likely to drop too steeply, further destabilizing societies. Think of it like climate change in the 1970’s: we can fix it now with minimal impact, or we could wait until it’s a crisis. We need to take steps now to make having more children a more attractive choice
Degrowth isn't just about population, or even about it at all. Degrowth is about doing the opposite of what capitalism forces us to do, infinite growth on a finite planet.
But also, the last thing we should do is incentivize birthing more people. We have increasing amounts of automation technologies, we don't need more people.
Robots are cool and all, but considering our (in a larger sense) children is literally the future of our civilization. The next generation is why it’s important to fix our mistakes, to leave things better than we found them, to open new opportunities and greater potential. Automation can enable that but is not a goal in itself, or is a short term goal for personal gain.
So yes, I’ll agree that we seem to have passed the healthy carrying capacity of the planet and should fix that. However I’ll strongly disagree that it would be a good thing to drop below the sustainability of current society, innovation, science, and I’ll strongly disagree it’s desirable to drop population fast enough to destabilize societies, economies, or to cause human suffering. That’s what we my be headed for. A few tweaks now, might help population level off and gradually decline without causing suffering, and hopefully level off at a healthy total.
Let’s fix our mistakes while still setting the next generation up for success, not give in to misery and root for disaster
Edit: if you read the Wikipedia article on degrowth, there’s surprisingly little focus on reducing population and it really isn’t a goal, although an important tool. Pretty much all of the precepts contradict sudden population declines or the aftereffects of that
Yes I know degrowth isn't about population, that's what I said?
But if population naturally declines, I really don't think it's a good idea to try to reverse that trend. Less people means less resources consumed, and better quality of life for those children. Prioritize the people already alive over those that aren't born. We have more than enough people in the world, and a lot of those people's potential is not fully reached due to inequality.