Things are getting better!

[Synobun]

Post-scarcity is only a fantasy.

Im not judging you or Hygro, I'm a mostly half-ass environmentalist myself but don't delude yourself that technology is gonna save our asses. There is no trend in that direction. Most new efficiencies and technologies creates more waste not less. Kind of how labor-saving devices make life more harried.

This is too fatalistic for my tastes, sorry. Post-scarcity along the lines of what Star Trek portrays is definitely fantasy or at least out of reach for several centuries more. Post-scarcity within a modern context isn't, and I would genuinely argue that short span capitalism and fatalist attitudes are to blame for that being an unreachable goal.

 

[Lexicus]

Placing faith in "technology" as a way of finally obviating politics is but another form of Utopianism.

 

[Narz]

This is too fatalistic for my tastes, sorry. Post-scarcity along the lines of what Star Trek portrays is definitely fantasy or at least out of reach for several centuries more. Post-scarcity within a modern context isn't, and I would genuinely argue that short span capitalism and fatalist attitudes are to blame for that being an unreachable goal.

Lol, when all trends are pointing towards more and more unsustainable human consumption it takes a lot of faith to believe such things.

Where is the evidence that modern 1st worlders, who currently use like 100 times more resources than the average Bangladeshi are suddenly gonna live within their means with more to spare, environmental degradation will stop and not only that but the rest of the word will become rich too?

And blaming realism is like someone telling me I could run my car on fairy farts if I wasn't so skeptical.

Modern humans are way too optimistic ,we have no real sense of urgency to change anything (and even if we did follow climate treaties to the letter it still would only mitigate our damage) and magical thinking will only make things worse.

Humans individually tend to overestimate their abilities. En masse, even more so. Humanity is in an adolescent stage, having a manic episode and believing we never gonna die. The few people who are like, "Dude, maybe we should quit driving like maniacs and think about the future" are laughed at and called fatalists. "We ain't never getting older..." (at least when civilization collapses the downward tragectory of modern music may finally reverse)

 

[Synobun]

Most of what you just said doesn't really apply to me. I'm not a part of the cabal you see posting lies in the global warming thread or peddling the nonsense that everything is peachy and we shouldn't change a thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, this is a good point. I was thinking more about the gratuitous cruelty of the factory farm system, the purpose of which is to squeeze as much profit out of the process as possible. The slave South treated people just the same way. But people have greater ethical weight than animals, and there's really just no getting around that.

Not disagreeing with your point, but given that we're weighing, shouldn't ratios be considered? I mean, no measure would be better than crude. But still. Ratios.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a metaphor. I don't think it's quantifiable.

 

[Narz]

Most of what you just said doesn't really apply to me. I'm not a part of the cabal you see posting lies in the global warming thread or peddling the nonsense that everything is peachy and we shouldn't change a thing.

You said you believe post-scarcity is near, can you explain how you think we'll get there?

 

[Lexicus]

You said you believe post-scarcity is near, can you explain how you think we'll get there?

Step 1: abolish the rule of capital
Step 2: let the free market do its thing

 

[Synobun]

You said you believe post-scarcity is near, can you explain how you think we'll get there?

No I didn't. I can't explain in defense of a statement I never made.

 

[Narz]

No I didn't. I can't explain in defense of a statement I never made.

Ok, you didn't say it's near, that's true. Anyway how would we attempt to get there in your view?

 

[Synobun]

Ok, you didn't say it's near, that's true. Anyway how would we attempt to get there in your view?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned I'd like to see an opt-in/out tax on income that gets allocated strictly towards QoL research. I think that would be a big boost right away as it'd dramatically increase research funding beyond what individual non-profits can muster.

I'd also like to see educational reform in some capacity. I believe a student body educated in life skills and future issues will grow to become an adult body equipped with the knowledge necessary to make better changes and to also be aware of tangible, provable problems later on. This one is probably tough to swing since standardization has been key for quite some time, at least in North America. Education is also woefully underfunded. Until that gets resolved, the reform I mention would likely tank the system entirely.

Beyond that, better building code regulation. There are advancements today that reduce environmental impact that get passed over because minimizing cost is key in new developments. For example, greywater recycling switched from general-con to general-pro a little over a decade ago and is currently floundering in usability limbo. The problems that still exist with the system will probably only be resolved once the economic inertia of adoption sets in but that will never happen as long as real estate developers neglect the quality of their construction projects.

I also mentioned short span capitalism, and by that I'm referencing innate lifespans being built into products. Removing the incentive to reduce lifespan would help a great deal but this would require some drastic economic changes. Barring revolution, that will be a slow burn. UBI and automation will force society to consider changing that status quo. Something as simple as changing packaging in the hospitality and food industries can also have an immediate impact which largely doesn't alter someone's daily behaviour.

Government encouragement of utilizing renewable energy would also go a long way. It incentivizes development companies to construct buildings that have close to zero impact on the environment when it comes to maintenance and operation. Edmonton in Alberta has a couple buildings that boast this, but in general there are a lot of things that can be encouraged that would reduce operational footprint during the transition from waste to neutrality. The construction of solar panels, for example, has an initial environmental impact but reduces the footprint of energy generation afterwards. ROI is improving every year and even in cloudy cold climates you can reduce the need for drawing from dirty energy sources by a sizable percentage.

I'd love to see more attention being given to urban arcology (not the sci-fi envisioning). Greenifying urban spaces will help offset environmental costs and improve general health, both things that don't require any lifestyle restrictions on the part of the individual. The +15 system in Calgary is a good example of easing density woes. With GMO technology improving exponentially, the opportunity to cover city buildings in plant life is also one that should be considered. Urban-safe vegetation would reduce noise and air pollution, again improve the health of the general population, and provide viable habitats for insects (which will become increasingly important as pesticides and environmental woes eliminate wide-spanning populations of insects that help us survive).

You can argue that most of these changes wouldn't allow individuals to act as they please, and you're right. What they would do is pressure society to naturally steer itself towards that path. I don't trust humans, especially not to make the right call in a crisis. It's why I don't recognize self-flagellation to be a viable option for anyone except the fanatic. Inertia is a powerful social mechanism and builds upon itself if properly applied. Encouraging society to be passively aware of the environment will help any effort towards innovation and progressing towards a functionally neutral footprint. It's true that forsaking many modern amenities would reduce your footprint, and it's true that everyone else following suit would help a great deal, but it's not viable in application.

 

[Traitorfish]

By this logic, Protestantism itself could never have 'succeeded' in the Catholic Europe of 1517.

That's not exactly the point I was trying to make. The great majority of revolutionary socialists throughout history have been from non-Protestant backgrounds, all of which have their own millenarian traditions, so framing revolutionary socialism as a sort secularised Protestantism isn't clearly helpful or necessary.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not exactly the point I was trying to make. The great majority of revolutionary socialists throughout history have been from non-Protestant backgrounds, all of which have their own millenarian traditions, so framing revolutionary socialism as a sort secularised Protestantism isn't clearly helpful or necessary.

Replace Protestantism with Christianity then, I'm not too fussy about that.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why Protestantism, anyway? It has a strong focus on the individual and certainly never had a monopoly over millenarianism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Replace Protestantism with Christianity then, I'm not too fussy about that.

You've still got to account for Trotsky and Mao, and the broader the analogy, the less tenable it is.

I'm not saying that there's no comparisons to be made between millenarianism and revolutionism, but the comparisons really have to be drawn between specific traditions, else it's just an analogy between the presumed psychologies of the participants.

 

[Lexicus]

just an analogy between the presumed psychologies of the participants.

That's exactly what it was meant to be.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Earlier in the thread I mentioned I'd like to see an opt-in/out tax on income that gets allocated strictly towards QoL research. I think that would be a big boost right away as it'd dramatically increase research funding beyond what individual non-profits can muster.

Nice but not very likely. The entrenched business and industry interests would fight tooth and nail to prevent.

I'd also like to see educational reform in some capacity. I believe a student body educated in life skills and future issues will grow to become an adult body equipped with the knowledge necessary to make better changes and to also be aware of tangible, provable problems later on. This one is probably tough to swing since standardization has been key for quite some time, at least in North America. Education is also woefully underfunded. Until that gets resolved, the reform I mention would likely tank the system entirely.

Adding physics to the k-12 curriculum has been shown to be a smart move if you want to improve the overall educational experience and improve the thinking/and skill of an areas workforce.

Beyond that, better building code regulation. There are advancements today that reduce environmental impact that get passed over because minimizing cost is key in new developments. For example, greywater recycling switched from general-con to general-pro a little over a decade ago and is currently floundering in usability limbo. The problems that still exist with the system will probably only be resolved once the economic inertia of adoption sets in but that will never happen as long as real estate developers neglect the quality of their construction projects.

I also mentioned short span capitalism, and by that I'm referencing innate lifespans being built into products. Removing the incentive to reduce lifespan would help a great deal but this would require some drastic economic changes. Barring revolution, that will be a slow burn. UBI and automation will force society to consider changing that status quo. Something as simple as changing packaging in the hospitality and food industries can also have an immediate impact which largely doesn't alter someone's daily behaviour.

Government encouragement of utilizing renewable energy would also go a long way. It incentivizes development companies to construct buildings that have close to zero impact on the environment when it comes to maintenance and operation. Edmonton in Alberta has a couple buildings that boast this, but in general there are a lot of things that can be encouraged that would reduce operational footprint during the transition from waste to neutrality. The construction of solar panels, for example, has an initial environmental impact but reduces the footprint of energy generation afterwards. ROI is improving every year and even in cloudy cold climates you can reduce the need for drawing from dirty energy sources by a sizable percentage.

I'd love to see more attention being given to urban arcology (not the sci-fi envisioning). Greenifying urban spaces will help offset environmental costs and improve general health, both things that don't require any lifestyle restrictions on the part of the individual. The +15 system in Calgary is a good example of easing density woes. With GMO technology improving exponentially, the opportunity to cover city buildings in plant life is also one that should be considered. Urban-safe vegetation would reduce noise and air pollution, again improve the health of the general population, and provide viable habitats for insects (which will become increasingly important as pesticides and environmental woes eliminate wide-spanning populations of insects that help us survive).

You can argue that most of these changes wouldn't allow individuals to act as they please, and you're right. What they would do is pressure society to naturally steer itself towards that path. I don't trust humans, especially not to make the right call in a crisis. It's why I don't recognize self-flagellation to be a viable option for anyone except the fanatic. Inertia is a powerful social mechanism and builds upon itself if properly applied. Encouraging society to be passively aware of the environment will help any effort towards innovation and progressing towards a functionally neutral footprint. It's true that forsaking many modern amenities would reduce your footprint, and it's true that everyone else following suit would help a great deal, but it's not viable in application.

One thing you could add would be to improve the reuse of the trash that goes into landfills. 50 years ago I saw an illustration in a newspaper of a "machine" into which anything was dumped and step by step metals, wood, stones, organics, pollutants, water, etc. were all separated until nothing was left. The exact processes were not clearly defined, but the idea was clear: everything could be broken down into some basic category of material that could be pulled out of the inflow and then used. This imaginary machine began with grinding, shredding, mincing everything into small pieces at the start and from there the magic was worked. That was 50 years ago. I am surprised we cannot do that today. I would think that if one could make such a machine that could run "endlessly" and accept just about any material, it would be useful in solving several growing problems.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Adding physics to the k-12 curriculum has been shown to be a smart move if you want to improve the overall educational experience and improve the thinking/and skill of an areas workforce.

You mean there are places where physics is not part of the science curriculum? My first exposure to chemistry and physics was in Grade 5. I wasn't very good at physics, but ended up taking chemistry all the way through high school. I'd intended to keep on with chemistry in college, but for several reasons I switched to geography.

 

[Synobun]

You mean there are places where physics is not part of the science curriculum? My first exposure to chemistry and physics was in Grade 5. I wasn't very good at physics, but ended up taking chemistry all the way through high school. I'd intended to keep on with chemistry in college, but for several reasons I switched to geography.

It wasn't in mine. My high school didn't even have a physics class.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It wasn't in mine. My high school didn't even have a physics class.

You must have gone to a small school, then, or somewhere that couldn't attract a variety of teachers. That must have made it difficult for the students who planned to do a science degree or a B.Ed. in science when they got to college/university.

One of the weird things about one of the physics teachers at my high school (we had at least two, I think) is that he knew me - even though I'd never been in any of his classes. He'd say hi in the hallway, or if we happened to run into each other at the local Co-op (grocery store). He always called me by name, and this led me to realize that teachers gossip about their students. Of course that led to me wondering which of my biology or chemistry teachers was responsible for spreading the gossip (I took biology and chemistry throughout high school; I needed at least two lab sciences to get into college). If memory serves, we had at least 4 teachers in both biology and chemistry.