Capitalism is the cause, agreed, I'm just trying to figure where to go from here. One way or another we will need to change, the question is how, to what extent and when? If we believe climate scientists, which I do, there's not much time, which kind of restrains our options at this point. — ChatteringMonkey
If the choice was between destroying capitalism or destroying earth, given the time frame we’d have no shot. Capitalism — the form we have — will stay around a while longer, and so there has to be alternatives. — Xtrix
And the civilizations you are referring to? Seems to me the civilizations in history were far more fragile to collapse. — ssu
Population growth is the natural reason for economic growth and demand growth. If populations are stable or decreasing, that is a huge issue on this issue. You don't have only decrease in use because of technological advancement, but also due to demand decrease. That is a huge issue. Besides, earlier population growth was seen as the primary reason for doom, starting from Malthus, which isn't something unimportant now.
Japan has a decreasing population. Notice what has happened to it's need of energy: — ssu
Moving is a bad term here.Other civilizations always had the chance to at least move somewhere else. For instance, Roman civilization did effectively move to Byzantine and survived for another 1000 years. — boethius
What I'm arguing is that to solve these problems take more than 20 years and yes, long term changes in population growth do matter. They simply are so subtle that those focusing just on the present day don't notice their effects. And it's not just technological advancement, but also the market mechanism which also is an important factor here.You are arguing in a hypothetical realm divorced from reality. — boethius
So in your view in 20 years there is a catastrophy, a collapse?On the time scales imposed by the actual reality we live in, depopulation would be required in the next couple of decades; and the only feasible way to do that is through environmental collapse: the problem we are trying to avoid. Otherwise, people try to survive and try to help other people survive, no one volunteers themselves for depopulation. — boethius
First, actual global population growth to be negative will take a long, long time. It possibly can happen in the next Century, which is quite a way off. Second, it's not the kind of "depopulation" some antinatalists think about. It's simply what is already happening in Japan and in many countries all around the world.The tough realist position (that includes effective actions) is not depopulation, — boethius
Democracy has it's faults, but it's still the thing I believe in. It has some safety valves built into it, if only the citizens would apply them. The alternatives usually don't have them. Radical technological transformation, yes. Radical political transformation, be careful just what you wish for.radical transformation of our political system (which, as I explain in my previous post, I define as effectively arresting control of our institutions from our sociopathic oligarchs) — boethius
Moving is a bad term here. — ssu
What I'm arguing is that to solve these problems take more than 20 years and yes, long term changes in population growth do matter. — ssu
They simply are so subtle that those focusing just on the present day don't notice their effects. And it's not just technological advancement, but also the market mechanism which also is an important factor here. — ssu
So in your view in 20 years there is a catastrophy, a collapse? — ssu
Emission budget and necessary emission reduction pathways to meet the two-degree target agreed in Paris Agreement without negative emissions, depending on the emission peak — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_budget
Democracy has it's faults, but it's still the thing I believe in. It has some safety valves built into it, if only the citizens would apply them. The alternatives usually don't have them. Radical technological transformation, yes. Radical political transformation, be careful just what you wish for. — ssu
Then just what historical study shows a huge migration of people from the Western parts moving to East Rome that you are talking about. Seriously, I've not heard about it so inform me.It's a perfectly good term — boethius
Then I wrote it badly. Feudalism was an answer to deal with the collapse. So I think we agree here.Feudalism I would argue was not "moving Roman civilization" to the country side, but the collapse of the Western Roman civilization. — boethius
It was a response to this:I have no idea what you're talking about i terms of technology advance and market mechanism in this context. — boethius
That radical technological change needs also the market mechanism. Competition is a way to make things efficient.However, our technological systems and infrastructure and level of affluence can be radically changed in mere decades. It requires high level of effort, but it is feasible. — boethius
I wanna say part of the problem is inherent in human beings... it's evolutions fault that we will destroy us. — ChatteringMonkey
I wanna say part of the problem is inherent in human beings... it's evolutions fault that we will destroy us.
— ChatteringMonkey
And yet we lived for 192,000 years with virtually no measurable impact on the climate or global ecosystem, and in the last few thousand are in a position to make the earth uninhabitable.
If your computer worked without fault for 192 years and then in the last year started to go wrong are you seriously telling me your first port of call for blame would be that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way the computer was made and not "oh no, I must have picked up a virus, or dropped it, or something"? — Isaac
when human culture evolution really started is a bit in contention I'd say. — ChatteringMonkey
In the video Boethius linked to, Dr Suzuki compares economic growth with bacteria in a test tube that grow exponentially every minute. — ChatteringMonkey
the point at which we started spreading across the globe, a lot of megafauna did become extinct, and we did reshape whole ecosystems as we progressed into agriculture, domesticated species etc etc... — ChatteringMonkey
Our moral intuitions aren't developed to take into account far off risks or other people in the abstract. We pursue impartiality and abstraction by expressing everything in terms of money, which becomes a self perpetuating beast mostly out of our control (the Market) so that we don't have to feel anything about a decision, further divorcing it from morality. — Benkei
If I may interject, I think we are a victim of the slow development of human nature that cannot keep up with the rapid changes resulting from technological inventions and our ability to easily transfer knowledge and cooperate. Our moral intuitions aren't developed to take into account far off risks or other people in the abstract. We pursue impartiality and abstraction by expressing everything in terms of money, which becomes a self perpetuating beast mostly out of our control (the Market) so that we don't have to feel anything about a decision, further divorcing it from morality.
What you're left with is a society that rumbles along with barely a chance to steer it in another direction simply because of its size and complexity and people incapable of making moral decisions most of the time and it's not even their fault. — Benkei
Aah right, you are generally distrustful of people making an argument about human nature, promoting a defeatist attitude, put me in that box and thought I deserved a good beat-down. — ChatteringMonkey
as soon as the ice-age came to pass and conditions were such that we could have enough population and density, cultural evolution took off all across the world in multiply isolated locations, and the rest is history. — ChatteringMonkey
Our moral intuitions aren't developed to take into account far off risks or other people in the abstract. We pursue impartiality and abstraction by expressing everything in terms of money, which becomes a self perpetuating beast mostly out of our control (the Market) so that we don't have to feel anything about a decision, further divorcing it from morality.
What you're left with is a society that rumbles along with barely a chance to steer it in another direction simply because of its size and complexity and people incapable of making moral decisions most of the time and it's not even their fault. — Benkei
Surely you don't expect us to all be scientific scholars on every subject and post on a science journal level or shut up. — ChatteringMonkey
I think it's very likely that we will have some countries collapsing to civil war especially in the Sahel region, that already is hit the most. For example the hunger index shows on map quite well what the areas are were conflict can happen and is happening:Collapse won't happen in 20 years "to the day", but would be a process of unrelenting droughts, floods, fires, leading to crop failures, political upheaval, and both civil and inter-nation wars. — boethius
This isn't at all realistic.Armies (running out of food) won't simply sit around and starve to death, so the habitable places that remain will face relentless invasion and piracy with dwindling weapons systems that can no longer be renewed without the present global technological manufacturing platform. — boethius
On the contrary.You obviously didn't read my previous post which I literally say "as I explain in my previous post, I define as effectively arresting control of our institutions from our sociopathic oligarchs" is effective democracy. — boethius
I'm not even sure what you disagree with, as it's almost a truism what I said. — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.