Forget Shorter Showers (2009)(orionmagazine.org)
orionmagazine.org
Forget Shorter Showers (2009)
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/
11 comments
One problem here is that any outcome (warming or no, human-engineered or no) will impact every nation differently. Under current warming projections, some nations will see massive increases in arable land, whereas others will be completely underwater. Even within nations, some cities and regions will see detrimental effects, whereas others could even see benefits (though this is taboo to talk about, which foreshadows one variation of the problem).
It seems naively optimistic to think we will be able to geoengineer altruistically or with the general good in mind. Even the concept of an 'average good' for the earth is a little morally problematic if some nations benefit and others are hurt. When a nation acquires the ability to affect climate at a large scale, it seems likely that it will be used for political ends as much as for net positive outcomes.
It seems naively optimistic to think we will be able to geoengineer altruistically or with the general good in mind. Even the concept of an 'average good' for the earth is a little morally problematic if some nations benefit and others are hurt. When a nation acquires the ability to affect climate at a large scale, it seems likely that it will be used for political ends as much as for net positive outcomes.
Yes.
Additionaly - developing countries are developing because they started to polute later. They are now punished again by being prohibited from abusing einvironment the same (cheap) way that developed countries did before.
That means rich countries will remain richer than poor countries because they can afford massive investment into infrastructure to switch to cleaner alternatives, while poor countries will need to adjust by using less power, producing less goods etc.
You basically ask poor countries to be poorer to stop effect that doesn't matter to many of them (or even could be positive).
Without artifical incentives it will be VERY hard sell. And right now the only incentives proposed are negative (tax on CO2 emmision).
What if developed countries PAID poor countries that would benefit from global warming to switch to cleaner energy sources? But that's taboo as well.
Additionaly - developing countries are developing because they started to polute later. They are now punished again by being prohibited from abusing einvironment the same (cheap) way that developed countries did before.
That means rich countries will remain richer than poor countries because they can afford massive investment into infrastructure to switch to cleaner alternatives, while poor countries will need to adjust by using less power, producing less goods etc.
You basically ask poor countries to be poorer to stop effect that doesn't matter to many of them (or even could be positive).
Without artifical incentives it will be VERY hard sell. And right now the only incentives proposed are negative (tax on CO2 emmision).
What if developed countries PAID poor countries that would benefit from global warming to switch to cleaner energy sources? But that's taboo as well.
Actually, at least for the global warming issues, the poor countries are going to be the ones that generally get the worst effects and also have the least ability to mitigate those effects with limited human casualties. And the countries that are likely to get some positive agricultural benefit are the northern countries which are among the most developed countries in the world.
Netherlands has cities multiple meters below sea level. The western major coastal cities can be shielded from a few meters of sea level increase - it would cost immense (but still realistic) amounts of money, but the heavily inhabited coastal regions of poor countries will simply drown and cause many millions of displaced poor people.
The effects matter to the poor countries more than everybody else. I'd say there are two reasons why they're not doing anything to stop it - first is the tragedy of commons, as it makes no sense for, say, Bangladesh (probably risking the worst effects from global warming) to stop emissions if China isn't doing the same; and second is simply that they can't afford to pay today for a larger benefit tomorrow; in the same manner as poor people often simply can't pay $10 now to prevent a certain $50 loss in a month.
Netherlands has cities multiple meters below sea level. The western major coastal cities can be shielded from a few meters of sea level increase - it would cost immense (but still realistic) amounts of money, but the heavily inhabited coastal regions of poor countries will simply drown and cause many millions of displaced poor people.
The effects matter to the poor countries more than everybody else. I'd say there are two reasons why they're not doing anything to stop it - first is the tragedy of commons, as it makes no sense for, say, Bangladesh (probably risking the worst effects from global warming) to stop emissions if China isn't doing the same; and second is simply that they can't afford to pay today for a larger benefit tomorrow; in the same manner as poor people often simply can't pay $10 now to prevent a certain $50 loss in a month.
And what makes you think that random outcomes ("natural" outcomes if you will) are any better ? I mean, didn't we stop believing in a benevolent God at some point ?
Because when I look at the green movement, my mind very quickly feels the need to point out that for the green movement to do any good at all with their pushing of nature, nature would have to be good. Nature is not good, nor is it evil, but let me point out that with very, very few exceptions murderers are not evil either (the large majority are furthering their own ends, not killing for fun or morals).
Because when I look at the green movement, my mind very quickly feels the need to point out that for the green movement to do any good at all with their pushing of nature, nature would have to be good. Nature is not good, nor is it evil, but let me point out that with very, very few exceptions murderers are not evil either (the large majority are furthering their own ends, not killing for fun or morals).
The mapping between natural features and human population/agriculture is generally near a local optimum. If a random grassland would be swapped with a random desert of the same size, from a natural viewpoint it would be nearly the same, but it would have horrible consequences for the people living there.
Any significant changes to the natural features in random direction should be expected to be harmful for us - we can be rather sure that moving 10 steps in direction A is expected to be worse than moving 1 step in direction B even if we don't know anything about the actual changes caused by those directions.
We should prefer small random changes to big changes, unless we're really, really sure that the big changes are actually beneficial.
Any significant changes to the natural features in random direction should be expected to be harmful for us - we can be rather sure that moving 10 steps in direction A is expected to be worse than moving 1 step in direction B even if we don't know anything about the actual changes caused by those directions.
We should prefer small random changes to big changes, unless we're really, really sure that the big changes are actually beneficial.
> We should prefer small random changes to big changes, unless we're really, really sure that the big changes are actually beneficial.
True. But natural changes in history have been anything but small.
True. But natural changes in history have been anything but small.
> I mean, didn't we stop believing in a benevolent God at some point ?
Who is we? The majority of the world believes in a "Supreme Being". In the US, about 75% believe in God, and in the EU 51% believe in God.
Who is we? The majority of the world believes in a "Supreme Being". In the US, about 75% believe in God, and in the EU 51% believe in God.
>Who is we?
The sensible people, who can clearly see that there's less a God than there is an Auditor of Reality, an anal, obsessive-compulsive cosmic bureaucrat who doesn't give half a damn what happens to people as long as every atom reports its spin and the paperwork is filed on every chemical reaction.
The sensible people, who can clearly see that there's less a God than there is an Auditor of Reality, an anal, obsessive-compulsive cosmic bureaucrat who doesn't give half a damn what happens to people as long as every atom reports its spin and the paperwork is filed on every chemical reaction.
> The large majority are furthering their own ends.
You sound uncannily like the misinterpretation I held of D&D3.0's moral system. The Morality of Killing people to further your own ends Is highly dependent on what those ends are.
Plus I'm pretty sure if there is a majority among murderer, it is anger problems, not slytherin
You sound uncannily like the misinterpretation I held of D&D3.0's moral system. The Morality of Killing people to further your own ends Is highly dependent on what those ends are.
Plus I'm pretty sure if there is a majority among murderer, it is anger problems, not slytherin
>whereas others will be completely underwater
Feels good to live 4 metres below sea level.
Feels good to live 4 metres below sea level.
The article exemplifies a pretty common attitude among certain types of environmentalists, which is that there's something intrinsically and irredeemably evil about the modern industrial society as a whole.
Not surprisingly, it does not occur to them that we might be able to harness and redirect the formidable forces of the industrial economy to do good instead of evil under certain circumstances. Even though this would be easier and more effective than getting rid of it altogether.
This is not a failure to think big. It's just what happens when you think big and only big. Nothing less than the entirety of the industrial economy can be the subject of their moral judgments, because they don't want to spend any time trying to find out which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil.
Not surprisingly, it does not occur to them that we might be able to harness and redirect the formidable forces of the industrial economy to do good instead of evil under certain circumstances. Even though this would be easier and more effective than getting rid of it altogether.
This is not a failure to think big. It's just what happens when you think big and only big. Nothing less than the entirety of the industrial economy can be the subject of their moral judgments, because they don't want to spend any time trying to find out which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil.
>which parts are okay and which parts are truly evil
I don't know if I agree with your premise here. Why do destructive (or even self-destructive) systems have to have "evil parts"?
These are systems problems, not the type of problem you can solve by taking out one kind of people and putting in another (or technology, or political party, or company, or…).
I don't know if I agree with your premise here. Why do destructive (or even self-destructive) systems have to have "evil parts"?
These are systems problems, not the type of problem you can solve by taking out one kind of people and putting in another (or technology, or political party, or company, or…).
I was using the word "parts" very loosely. In large systems, a problem might not be the fault of any specific part(s), but the result of complex interaction among parts. If so, that interaction as a whole, rather than its individual components, would be the "part" that is evil or buggy or (insert appropriately negative expression here).
Systems based on faulty architectures tend to be the most difficult to fix, since changing the basic architecture will affect nearly everything else. But even in such cases, it's not helpful to claim that the system as a whole is evil. If the architecture is bad, the architecture is bad. Anything more or less than that is hyperbole.
Systems based on faulty architectures tend to be the most difficult to fix, since changing the basic architecture will affect nearly everything else. But even in such cases, it's not helpful to claim that the system as a whole is evil. If the architecture is bad, the architecture is bad. Anything more or less than that is hyperbole.
>the result of complex interaction among parts
Agree 100%. The architecture is bad, and that causes suffering.
Agree 100%. The architecture is bad, and that causes suffering.
>How about a fourth option, which includes: massive geo and atmospheric engineering, nuclear/fusion research/dissemination, desalination and water pipelines, and large-scale laboratory meat production from real animal tissue.
Without stoping the industrial economy (actually just slowing it down) this is a non starter.
This only covers the food production/water, and perhaps energy needs. What about pollution from production? What about plastics, etc? Even with all that, the US/Western consumption levels don't scale to 7 billion people.
(Plus, what about people not actually really needing 90% of all the crap that's produced in the first place? The main reason behind all that stuff's production is not human need, either to create or to consume those products, but as a way to make money. That's why they have to be marketed that hard, or why other items have to be brittle to "expire" artificially and drive a new purchase cycle).
>and one that may even let us maintain our standard of living
I'd think the whole idea for me is to NOT maintain our catastrophic standard of living (I'm a European, the US one is even worse by most metrics), but to go into a sustainable (and humane) standard of living, and expand that to the third world.
Without stoping the industrial economy (actually just slowing it down) this is a non starter.
This only covers the food production/water, and perhaps energy needs. What about pollution from production? What about plastics, etc? Even with all that, the US/Western consumption levels don't scale to 7 billion people.
(Plus, what about people not actually really needing 90% of all the crap that's produced in the first place? The main reason behind all that stuff's production is not human need, either to create or to consume those products, but as a way to make money. That's why they have to be marketed that hard, or why other items have to be brittle to "expire" artificially and drive a new purchase cycle).
>and one that may even let us maintain our standard of living
I'd think the whole idea for me is to NOT maintain our catastrophic standard of living (I'm a European, the US one is even worse by most metrics), but to go into a sustainable (and humane) standard of living, and expand that to the third world.
Is anyone currently doing, hmm, civilization engineering? There's a very short question with a very long answer, design a perfect civilization. Heck, simplify it further, design a perfect industrial economy. What would our resource acquisition, energy generation and transmission, manufacturing and shipping, transportation and housing, agriculture have to look like to arbitrarily high standard of living with arbitrarily low environmental impacts?
So basically, you want a systems approach for designing sustainable… everything.
These guys seem to be on to something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
These guys seem to be on to something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
Yeah, permaculture is interesting, but heavily biased towards agriculture. I'm also not sure if it takes a civilization-level view. Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture? Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land? Can it function with the available manpower in our hypothetical civilization? Modern agriculture directly employees something like 1-3% of the population; do you need 10-20% engaged in permaculture growing food, or 80-150%?
>Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture?
Note that industrial agriculture isn't a viable replacement for itself (that's what being unsustainable means). So if you're expecting any drop-in replacement for industrial agriculture to be sustainable, you'll be disappointed.
Permaculture is a process for designing systems. You can use it to design food systems, financial systems, energy systems, etc. And like most processes, you can fuck it up and do a bad job. :)
>Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land?
An underlying assumption here is that food has to be produced on "arable" (read: cleared) land. This is tremendously inefficient, since most sunlight strikes bare soil and therefore isn't photosynthesized.
Forests yield an order of magnitude more biomass per hectare without any human inputs, so it's definitely possible. The trick is to design the forest so it yields useful outputs while minimizing inputs.[1]
This is all pretty abstract, so here's a simple example. Human labor is an input, and one technique to minimize it is zone analysis[2]. During zone analysis you minimize labor and energy by consciously placing the most frequently visited elements closest, followed by the next, and so on. This sounds obvious, but it avoids many common mistakes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s
[2] http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-d...
Note that industrial agriculture isn't a viable replacement for itself (that's what being unsustainable means). So if you're expecting any drop-in replacement for industrial agriculture to be sustainable, you'll be disappointed.
Permaculture is a process for designing systems. You can use it to design food systems, financial systems, energy systems, etc. And like most processes, you can fuck it up and do a bad job. :)
>Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land?
An underlying assumption here is that food has to be produced on "arable" (read: cleared) land. This is tremendously inefficient, since most sunlight strikes bare soil and therefore isn't photosynthesized.
Forests yield an order of magnitude more biomass per hectare without any human inputs, so it's definitely possible. The trick is to design the forest so it yields useful outputs while minimizing inputs.[1]
This is all pretty abstract, so here's a simple example. Human labor is an input, and one technique to minimize it is zone analysis[2]. During zone analysis you minimize labor and energy by consciously placing the most frequently visited elements closest, followed by the next, and so on. This sounds obvious, but it avoids many common mistakes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s
[2] http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-d...
>massive geo and atmospheric engineering, nuclear/fusion research/dissemination, desalination and water pipelines, and large-scale laboratory meat production from real animal tissue
These "solutions" are merely a continuation of business-as-usual.
Each will inevitably cause problems larger than it solves, because until it does we'll just view that as "headroom" to grow more.
Desalination is particularly nasty, destroying huge amounts of land (at the opportunity cost of the ecosystem services the site could perform were it regenerated) in order to concentrate power and wealth. This is bad for socio-economic sustainability as well.
Proper rainwater harvesting and storage—or as I call it, "lazy desalination"—is quite sustainable both ecologically and socially, but that's the un-sexy problem: decentralized solutions don't make rich people richer. Try tackling that with your start-up. ;)
Continuous growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
These "solutions" are merely a continuation of business-as-usual.
Each will inevitably cause problems larger than it solves, because until it does we'll just view that as "headroom" to grow more.
Desalination is particularly nasty, destroying huge amounts of land (at the opportunity cost of the ecosystem services the site could perform were it regenerated) in order to concentrate power and wealth. This is bad for socio-economic sustainability as well.
Proper rainwater harvesting and storage—or as I call it, "lazy desalination"—is quite sustainable both ecologically and socially, but that's the un-sexy problem: decentralized solutions don't make rich people richer. Try tackling that with your start-up. ;)
Continuous growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
Rainwater is pretty dirty from pollutants in the atmosphere and has a strong pH value in many cases depending upon location.
EDITED for spelling and added clarity.
EDITED for spelling and added clarity.
It's not that dirty, but you do have to design for those concerns.
Acid rain can be buffered by adding seashells (lime) in the tank.
You can easily tip off the first N gallons of dirty rain (pollution, roof washing, etc) with a dead-end pipe with a dribble tube.
Acid rain can be buffered by adding seashells (lime) in the tank.
You can easily tip off the first N gallons of dirty rain (pollution, roof washing, etc) with a dead-end pipe with a dribble tube.
> Desalination is particularly nasty, destroying huge amounts of land
How does desalinating seawater destroy huge amounts of land?
How does desalinating seawater destroy huge amounts of land?
And no growth (or linear growth) is the ideology of the extinct.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. What do you mean by "growth" in this context? What is growing?
I don't think I need to enumerate the counterexamples here, as any long-lived extant species would suffice.
I don't think I need to enumerate the counterexamples here, as any long-lived extant species would suffice.
1) read this
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat...
2) realize why populations "stabilize" ... (which for all species but humans and domesticated species means that the rate of die-off is equal to the rate of exponential growth. It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially).
There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat...
2) realize why populations "stabilize" ... (which for all species but humans and domesticated species means that the rate of die-off is equal to the rate of exponential growth. It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially).
There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.
Nice read! I'll keep that link as a digestable intro to population dynamics. I now think our misunderstanding is merely semantic.
I'm talking about physical growth (the growth of measurable quantities in a system through time, e.g. population counts). This would of course be net growth, as an individual dying off would reduce the count.
You seem to using "growth" as "replacement rate". Of course the replacement rate must be non-zero, but that says nothing about the net growth rate.
>It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially
Wait… individuals grow exponentially? https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ :)
>There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.
That's true. It's also true that any element that never stops growing exponentially (again, net growth) is bound for the same fate.
I'm talking about physical growth (the growth of measurable quantities in a system through time, e.g. population counts). This would of course be net growth, as an individual dying off would reduce the count.
You seem to using "growth" as "replacement rate". Of course the replacement rate must be non-zero, but that says nothing about the net growth rate.
>It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially
Wait… individuals grow exponentially? https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ :)
>There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.
That's true. It's also true that any element that never stops growing exponentially (again, net growth) is bound for the same fate.
>There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.
Those are animal species. We have other talents, and other issues to solve.
Those are animal species. We have other talents, and other issues to solve.
The idea that the human population is somehow exempt from the natural laws on population sizes is wholly unsupported by history. The human population follows a population curve near-perfectly, better than many animal species.
The problem with engineering the planet is that you would presumably have to have every country on-board for it to be effective (or at least the big ones). Which would imply that either the engineered solution is so obvious to everyone involved that any opposition would be considered a fringe minority, or you have some sort of united world government that has the power to enforce that kind of change. Neither of those seems super likely though, at least in the near future.
I think the exact opposite is true. In order to make real climate change progress we'll have to have a all the major nations on board for real cuts to C02 usage. That includes telling China, India, and Brazil that they must use a fraction of the C0/2 per capita that western nations use.
On the other hand, a single rouge nation could engage in geoengineering. Some even claim a rouge billionaire could do it.
On the other hand, a single rouge nation could engage in geoengineering. Some even claim a rouge billionaire could do it.
We've already done this with free trade agreements, human rights, etc. A strong consensus is enough, rest can be done with such and carrot diplomatically (aid, sanctions).
That's a religious heresy to this movement. What you wrote is tantamount to suggesting a Christian worship Satan.
We cannot even reliably forecast the weather one week in the future, and you are advocating climate engineering on a global scale? Forgive me for being skeptical. I'm not aware of any so-called geo-engineering effort that has been successful other than those whose aim was strictly to undo whatever it is we did to fuck things up in the first place.
There is no fourth option. It's simply delusional.
There is no fourth option. It's simply delusional.
It's worth repeating that weather and climate are two very different beasts.
> We cannot even reliably forecast the weather one week in the future, and you are advocating climate engineering on a global scale?
Weather is not climate.
I don't think we should act immediately. Atmospheric and oceanic engineering could take decades - maybe even a hundred years - to research, test, and convince the world of.
I'm talking about multi-generation engineering projects.
Weather is not climate.
I don't think we should act immediately. Atmospheric and oceanic engineering could take decades - maybe even a hundred years - to research, test, and convince the world of.
I'm talking about multi-generation engineering projects.
[deleted]
By the accounting of the article, I'm a wonderful person. I've cut back all my consumption to virtually the bare minimum, vastly below the poverty level in the US. For example I recently purchased a flight from NY to Delhi. By the accounting of the article, the only waste I produced was the (now discarded) boarding pass.
The only waste and pollution that was produced by the evil Air India corporation. And if I (and sufficiently many other consumers) were to cut back on consumption, it would have virtually no effect - those evil folks at Air India would continue burning jet fuel and polluting.
Spot the flaw? I paid Air India to pollute on my behalf. If I (+ 50% of a planeload of people) did not pay them they would not have wasted money polluting.
There are many specific cases where this is not true, agricultural water consumption being one of the most egregious. These are (economically, not politically) low hanging fruit and should be fixed. But if the article wants to argue that huge fractions of pollution fall into this category, it needs to do a lot more quantitative work.
The only waste and pollution that was produced by the evil Air India corporation. And if I (and sufficiently many other consumers) were to cut back on consumption, it would have virtually no effect - those evil folks at Air India would continue burning jet fuel and polluting.
Spot the flaw? I paid Air India to pollute on my behalf. If I (+ 50% of a planeload of people) did not pay them they would not have wasted money polluting.
There are many specific cases where this is not true, agricultural water consumption being one of the most egregious. These are (economically, not politically) low hanging fruit and should be fixed. But if the article wants to argue that huge fractions of pollution fall into this category, it needs to do a lot more quantitative work.
I think the key issue is that if you stop flying, it's a net loss to you with very little marginal gain for the environment since other people will continue to fly. So only the most environmentally conscious people actually take action, and global warming goes on.
If we want things to change, I think we need to change the rules for everybody, for example with strong taxation.
If we want things to change, I think we need to change the rules for everybody, for example with strong taxation.
That is a valid argument in favor of the article's conclusions.
That's a slight miscalculation the article makes -- ignores that by reducing spending in the consumer level, also corporate (e.g industrial) spending is reduced. But that's not the real gist of the article, and it doesn't reduce from the core message.
The thing is, this "invididual reducing" is never enough or workable in itself. That isolated individual decisions by themselves can lead to sustainable change is the real myth (and the lack of real impact of all this "shorter showers" and "recycling" campaigns reflect that).
Invididual action only matters for large scale effects when it gets systematic and organised and ends up as some general guideline (from a new law to a regime change). However we like heroes, for example, Rosa Parks didn't end seggregation. Millions of black and white civil rights activists, demonstrators, lobbyists, etc, did.
The thing is, this "invididual reducing" is never enough or workable in itself. That isolated individual decisions by themselves can lead to sustainable change is the real myth (and the lack of real impact of all this "shorter showers" and "recycling" campaigns reflect that).
Invididual action only matters for large scale effects when it gets systematic and organised and ends up as some general guideline (from a new law to a regime change). However we like heroes, for example, Rosa Parks didn't end seggregation. Millions of black and white civil rights activists, demonstrators, lobbyists, etc, did.
What you say is interesting, but I don't think the article is flawed. What the article implies is that the correct action is not using, for example, electronic tickets to avoid printing your boarding pass, but instead lobby to ask for legislation taxing jet engines which pollute above a certain threshold. Or maybe, increase the cost of water to truly reflect the environmental cost.
Of course, all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer.
Of course, all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer.
...all of these actions will increase the price for you, the final consumer.
Thereby inducing consumers to pay more and fly less. The effect is the same as if I (and others like me) were to decide never to leave NY.
I'm not disputing that fixing the cost of water specifically is a fantastic idea or that externalities should be properly taxed.
What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.
Thereby inducing consumers to pay more and fly less. The effect is the same as if I (and others like me) were to decide never to leave NY.
I'm not disputing that fixing the cost of water specifically is a fantastic idea or that externalities should be properly taxed.
What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.
>The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side.
Well, there's also the part of systematically of them using everything, from 24/7 advertising, to the latest psychological/cognitive tricks, to downright purposefully adding addictive substances in foods etc -- all designed to make people "want" goods and services.
It's not like people are left alone to decide for themselves what they want to buy -- we constantly live in a baragge of suggestions and nagging, 10 times as much as it was 5-6 decades ago.
Wanting something after logical thinking and perhaps admiring it's quality/beauty etc, and wanting something because you're conditioned to constantly is a distinction that's worth making.
(And of course, Dunning/Kruger style, everybody thinks that ads and such have no or minimal impact on them).
Well, there's also the part of systematically of them using everything, from 24/7 advertising, to the latest psychological/cognitive tricks, to downright purposefully adding addictive substances in foods etc -- all designed to make people "want" goods and services.
It's not like people are left alone to decide for themselves what they want to buy -- we constantly live in a baragge of suggestions and nagging, 10 times as much as it was 5-6 decades ago.
Wanting something after logical thinking and perhaps admiring it's quality/beauty etc, and wanting something because you're conditioned to constantly is a distinction that's worth making.
(And of course, Dunning/Kruger style, everybody thinks that ads and such have no or minimal impact on them).
Given that my possessions fit in one checked bag and one carryon, and are mostly minimally advertised (I can't recall ever seeing a Lenovo or Raymonds of India ad), I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising.
But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
>I feel fairly confident saying I'm not significantly influenced by advertising.
Either that or outliers in a sample set are not indicative of the general values.
I mean on one hand we have huge production and consumption levels and gigantic advertising budgets (and studies in consumer behavior), both rising enormously in the 20th century -- and those are hard facts --, and on the other hand we have the anecdotal evidence of a single person whose possessions fit in his checked bag and carry on...
>But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
Speaking of free will, one could perhaps resist answering every argument with quick snark like the above.
As if my argument that advertising has a major impact in consumption levels implies the extreme BS that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices".
That free will and the ability to make choices can be compromised is a known scientific fact, with lots of studies and experiments behind it, and it's something put in practice daily, from the design of casinos to websites showing three pricing options to you so you will choose the middle one.
That of course doesn't mean that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices" -- that's a BS strawman if I ever saw one.
Either that or outliers in a sample set are not indicative of the general values.
I mean on one hand we have huge production and consumption levels and gigantic advertising budgets (and studies in consumer behavior), both rising enormously in the 20th century -- and those are hard facts --, and on the other hand we have the anecdotal evidence of a single person whose possessions fit in his checked bag and carry on...
>But I'm sure you are right, everyone else lacks free will and the ability to make choices.
Speaking of free will, one could perhaps resist answering every argument with quick snark like the above.
As if my argument that advertising has a major impact in consumption levels implies the extreme BS that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices".
That free will and the ability to make choices can be compromised is a known scientific fact, with lots of studies and experiments behind it, and it's something put in practice daily, from the design of casinos to websites showing three pricing options to you so you will choose the middle one.
That of course doesn't mean that "everyone lacks free will and the ability to make choices" -- that's a BS strawman if I ever saw one.
I'm a bit confused as to what you are arguing. You cited the existence of advertising as some sort of counter to my claim that corporate pollution is done to enable consumption. Maybe you could explain more carefully what the relevance of advertising is?
Well, my argument was clear, and your previous response also showed perfect understanding of it (despite being a mostly snark/strawman response). But if you wish me to repeat it, here it is:
You wrote: "What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side."
And I argued that this idylic picture of the "industrial economy" being some benevolent industrialists striving to provide us with "goods and services we enjoy" is false.
How? In the sense that industrialists don't just cater to our (pre-existing needs) as you imply, but, with the aid of advertising, condition and manipulate us to consume and want those "goods and services" in the first place.
Hence, "corporate pollution" is not just the necessary result of our real consumption needs, but also of inflated advertisement driven consumption. Without the latter both consumotion and "corporate pollution" would be vastly less than what it is today.
P.S. And it's not just advertising industrialists use, there are other even more heinous things they use to help increase consumption, from ""planned obsolescence", to killing the public transit system to sell cars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... ), to modern-day killing of free municipal wi-fi to sell shity broadband options.
You wrote: "What I'm disputing is the idea in this essay that the industrial economy is somehow a bunch of evildoers polluting in order to get super rich and then light cigars with 1000 bills, unrelated to the rest of us. The industrial economy exists for the sole purpose of providing us with goods and services we enjoy and reducing the supply side is basically identical to reducing the demand side."
And I argued that this idylic picture of the "industrial economy" being some benevolent industrialists striving to provide us with "goods and services we enjoy" is false.
How? In the sense that industrialists don't just cater to our (pre-existing needs) as you imply, but, with the aid of advertising, condition and manipulate us to consume and want those "goods and services" in the first place.
Hence, "corporate pollution" is not just the necessary result of our real consumption needs, but also of inflated advertisement driven consumption. Without the latter both consumotion and "corporate pollution" would be vastly less than what it is today.
P.S. And it's not just advertising industrialists use, there are other even more heinous things they use to help increase consumption, from ""planned obsolescence", to killing the public transit system to sell cars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... ), to modern-day killing of free municipal wi-fi to sell shity broadband options.
If ads eliminate people's ability to make choices, then that argument would certainly be correct. But you described that as "extreme BS".
So I don't really understand the intermediate step. Corporations advertise. Then people choose to consume. People could choose differently if they wanted.
So I don't really understand the intermediate step. Corporations advertise. Then people choose to consume. People could choose differently if they wanted.
See chapter 34 here, for a hilarious takedown of that preposterous conception of advertising : http://prot-adar8-5773.s3.amazonaws.com/Reality-In-Advertisi...
I love this essay because it challenges us[1] about things most are too polite to mention. If you feel outrage at the following, then try recognizing that as a challenge to your beliefs.[2]
1) The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting ...
Two things we[1] generally promote contribute to this:
* 'Free market' economic policy: By reducing citizens' control over the economy and businesses, and by reducing their bargaining power (i.e., via the dominance of money in elections, reduced organized labor, click-wrap agreements, etc.), we reduce people's roles to that of consumers: If you like or dislike something, all you can do is consume or not consume.
* Reduction of end-user control in technology: From hosted applications to automatic updates to eliminating confidentiality to mobile devices built for consumption and not content creation to closed systems and data, we train users to passively consume rather than to control and create. Information technology, to some significant degree, establishes the Zeitgeist of our time.
2) So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses?
Climate change is putting the world at stake. How can you accept your utterly insufficient response? Whatever you are doing, it's probably utterly insufficient.[3]
It's nothing new to humanity to walk open-eyed into catastrophe. To borrow the author's analogy, now you know how people in Germany could watch Hitler rise to power and people in the West could watch him start marching across Europe, all knowing the very likely result, and do nothing about it.
[1] By "us" and "we", I mean what I imagine to be most HN readers.
[2] For the record, I like the author's questions but don't at all agree with his solution of ending modern 'industrial' society; things weren't so great before it
[3] Me too
1) The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting ...
Two things we[1] generally promote contribute to this:
* 'Free market' economic policy: By reducing citizens' control over the economy and businesses, and by reducing their bargaining power (i.e., via the dominance of money in elections, reduced organized labor, click-wrap agreements, etc.), we reduce people's roles to that of consumers: If you like or dislike something, all you can do is consume or not consume.
* Reduction of end-user control in technology: From hosted applications to automatic updates to eliminating confidentiality to mobile devices built for consumption and not content creation to closed systems and data, we train users to passively consume rather than to control and create. Information technology, to some significant degree, establishes the Zeitgeist of our time.
2) So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses?
Climate change is putting the world at stake. How can you accept your utterly insufficient response? Whatever you are doing, it's probably utterly insufficient.[3]
It's nothing new to humanity to walk open-eyed into catastrophe. To borrow the author's analogy, now you know how people in Germany could watch Hitler rise to power and people in the West could watch him start marching across Europe, all knowing the very likely result, and do nothing about it.
[1] By "us" and "we", I mean what I imagine to be most HN readers.
[2] For the record, I like the author's questions but don't at all agree with his solution of ending modern 'industrial' society; things weren't so great before it
[3] Me too
> By reducing citizens' control over the economy and businesses, and by reducing their bargaining power
I agree these are bad things, but they are not the outcome of a free market. The so-called "free market" coerces people into engaging in transactions they would not choose to engage in voluntarily; that is the opposite of a free market. (Perhaps you recognize this and that's why you put "free market" in quotes.)
> Climate change is putting the world at stake.
This statement illustrates part of the problem: we don't all agree on which problems are "putting the world at stake". I don't think climate change is one of them; you do. We can't agree on what actions to take if we can't agree on what we're trying to accomplish.
One possible way out is to redefine the goal: instead of "stop climate change", for example, make the goal "stop burning oil and coal". That goal I can agree with, because I have other reasons to support it that don't involve climate change. Of course, then we get to argue (maybe) about whether nuclear reactors are part of how we reach the goal.
> I like the author's questions but don't at all agree with his solution of ending modern 'industrial' society; things weren't so great before it
I completely agree.
I agree these are bad things, but they are not the outcome of a free market. The so-called "free market" coerces people into engaging in transactions they would not choose to engage in voluntarily; that is the opposite of a free market. (Perhaps you recognize this and that's why you put "free market" in quotes.)
> Climate change is putting the world at stake.
This statement illustrates part of the problem: we don't all agree on which problems are "putting the world at stake". I don't think climate change is one of them; you do. We can't agree on what actions to take if we can't agree on what we're trying to accomplish.
One possible way out is to redefine the goal: instead of "stop climate change", for example, make the goal "stop burning oil and coal". That goal I can agree with, because I have other reasons to support it that don't involve climate change. Of course, then we get to argue (maybe) about whether nuclear reactors are part of how we reach the goal.
> I like the author's questions but don't at all agree with his solution of ending modern 'industrial' society; things weren't so great before it
I completely agree.
Why does something have to be at the magnitude of 'defeat Hitler' to be worth doing?
Edit: to add a little content, personal sacrifices also make you aware of others' use. If you're limiting water and everyone in your neighbourhood has brown grass, then there's going to be pressure on the local golf course to follow suit. And plenty of business chiefs, especially in small-to-medium businesses, start applying the lessons they learn at home to their workplace as well. To characterise the equation as merely "the effort stops at your front door" is pretty misleading.
If the author wants to effect political change, there's got to be a better way to convince people than 'your individual efforts are worthless', methinks.
Edit: to add a little content, personal sacrifices also make you aware of others' use. If you're limiting water and everyone in your neighbourhood has brown grass, then there's going to be pressure on the local golf course to follow suit. And plenty of business chiefs, especially in small-to-medium businesses, start applying the lessons they learn at home to their workplace as well. To characterise the equation as merely "the effort stops at your front door" is pretty misleading.
If the author wants to effect political change, there's got to be a better way to convince people than 'your individual efforts are worthless', methinks.
I would put it in the context of effective altruism: take the time you spend each week neatly sorting your cardboard and bottles instead of throwing them in the trash, and instead spend that time participating in a PAC to lobby your local shipping company to use reclaimed materials in their boxes.
I don't think the article is suggesting that. What I read was that the "misdirection" about individual impact on these environmental issues is taking focus away from much larger scale issues that are not being addressed (as a result of the misdirection). The author I think implies that environmental challenges seem to be of a "defeat Hitler" magnitude...and that to face the challenge we need to make sure we're fighting on the right front.
I think the article would be better off phrased as "don't just stop here, continue the fight", though.
The article brings up a good point. It's a good way of making us feel responsible when in fact we make little impact.
For example, the 15 largest freighters create more pollution as every single car in the world. If this is the case why aren't we trying to fix pollution on these 15 ships instead of all this nonsense with fixing individual cars? Eliminating the pollution from these industrial ships by 10% is akin to taking millions of cars off the road. Yet all we talk about is car pooling, proudest and Teslas, etc.
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo...
For example, the 15 largest freighters create more pollution as every single car in the world. If this is the case why aren't we trying to fix pollution on these 15 ships instead of all this nonsense with fixing individual cars? Eliminating the pollution from these industrial ships by 10% is akin to taking millions of cars off the road. Yet all we talk about is car pooling, proudest and Teslas, etc.
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo...
"15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."
First step is countries ban the vessels from coming anywhere near land. I guess that keeps pollution out of sight, out of mind. Next step.... I don't know. But I'm hopeful soon enough the powerplant will be significantly greener. In the short term you can get 1 order of magnitude from regulation. In the long term it's new technology.
First step is countries ban the vessels from coming anywhere near land. I guess that keeps pollution out of sight, out of mind. Next step.... I don't know. But I'm hopeful soon enough the powerplant will be significantly greener. In the short term you can get 1 order of magnitude from regulation. In the long term it's new technology.
That re-post of a re-post of an Guardian article about a study seems to have mutated to a point of becoming untrue.
The study claims, among other things, that the freighters create a lot of sulphur emisions, and that the EU has currently cleaned up car requirements so that they don't emit much sulphur in exhaust - thus, 15 largest freighters emit as much SOx as all the cars. It assumes that world's cars fit EU emission standards, which is false, and posting in this context seems to assume that the sulphur oxides cause global problems, which is also false - the bad effects of SOx pollution are rather localized, and if we can replace 1 unit of SOx in the middle of a city with 2 units of SOx in the middle of an ocean, then I'd treat that as good thing.
A more appropriate citation (from the same original article, actually) is the following - it still shows some space for improvement, but is significantly diffferent than the untrue alarmist claim in the parent post.
"Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution."
The study claims, among other things, that the freighters create a lot of sulphur emisions, and that the EU has currently cleaned up car requirements so that they don't emit much sulphur in exhaust - thus, 15 largest freighters emit as much SOx as all the cars. It assumes that world's cars fit EU emission standards, which is false, and posting in this context seems to assume that the sulphur oxides cause global problems, which is also false - the bad effects of SOx pollution are rather localized, and if we can replace 1 unit of SOx in the middle of a city with 2 units of SOx in the middle of an ocean, then I'd treat that as good thing.
A more appropriate citation (from the same original article, actually) is the following - it still shows some space for improvement, but is significantly diffferent than the untrue alarmist claim in the parent post.
"Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution."
The "15 ships" claim doesn't really pass the sniff test.
When an article says, in a casual matter of fact way:
we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity)
to which we’ve grown accustomed
While I certainly would not cheer on a return to a pre-electric era, electricity has only been available for 125 years or so. We have done and could do very much better than hunting and gathering in the complete absence of electricity.
The first part of this essay is actually really interesting. Consumers are being asked to cut back, even though the things they are cutting back are not actually the problem? Municipalities are paying $3+/sq ft to dig up lawn, if that's a pointless endeavor, then it should stop.
The second part I think is completely BS. The three options are all ridiculous. I think technology is moving very fast right now. We need tight regulation of obviously bad behavior, we need appropriate investment in infrastructure. But to some extent if you want to invest in anything just invest widely in technology.
The second part I think is completely BS. The three options are all ridiculous. I think technology is moving very fast right now. We need tight regulation of obviously bad behavior, we need appropriate investment in infrastructure. But to some extent if you want to invest in anything just invest widely in technology.
This is very true, but the fact is that I'm not interested in solving the problem. I'm satisfied with contributing less to it. The sacrifice asked of me is too much, and it seems most people think so. Would we rather have catastrophic climate change in the future if it permits our current standards of living? I think I speak for almost everyone when I answer in the affirmative.
Sure, I bike, I recycle, and I take public transit instead of driving. But I know that this doesn't change the world. It just reduces my contribution to the problem, and that is sufficient for me.
Sure, I bike, I recycle, and I take public transit instead of driving. But I know that this doesn't change the world. It just reduces my contribution to the problem, and that is sufficient for me.
It seems to me this is the de facto situation of most environmentally conscious people. A good first step is to acknowledge that baby steps are OK as long as they are on a good trajectory, and you show people around you that you can admit the facts to yourself without immediately falling into a funk of bad conscience and apathy.
After reading that, the only conclusion I can draw is it's all too hard.
The problem with a decentralized evolutionary economy is that it is blind to long range problems.
The solution is not to abandon the status quo. We are not smart enough to centrally plan even a small portion of it at the moment.
But rather educate the populace through solid, irrefutable facts over a period of time, until it becomes common knowledge that a particular action causes a disastrous effect.
Analogous to how smoking has receded from popular use.
The solution is not to abandon the status quo. We are not smart enough to centrally plan even a small portion of it at the moment.
But rather educate the populace through solid, irrefutable facts over a period of time, until it becomes common knowledge that a particular action causes a disastrous effect.
Analogous to how smoking has receded from popular use.
If you can read between the lines then you will know that the author of "inconvenient truth" mr al gore tells you to cut down on co2 emissions when he flies his private jet between McMansions that he owns from your taxes and owns a business trading co2 quotas internationally. But you prone to his propaganda peddle your little funny bike. The Chinese put online 20 new coal burning plants a week while we are shutting down ours. The chinese, ISIs, Russia, etc don't even need to do anything kick our asses. They just need to sit and patiently wait as the cancer of socialism and cultural Marxism do all the hard work for them. At the end they will just need to knock on the door of our country and the whole thing will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.
1. participate in the industrial economy = lose
2. living more simply = lose
3. stop the industrial economy = win
How about a fourth option, which includes: massive geo and atmospheric engineering, nuclear/fusion research/dissemination, desalination and water pipelines, and large-scale laboratory meat production from real animal tissue.
My understanding is that the damage we've done will take thousands of years to reverse if done naturally. If that's true, the only viable solution, and one that may even let us maintain our standard of living, is the massive all-in application of science and engineering we used to decades ago dream about and assume would naturally come.
Are we that spooked as a species that we forgot to think big, or is it simply delusional to think we can engineer the planet?