804
sigh (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm skeptical. I just skimmed the paper, but most of it seems to be taking a financial/macro-economic perspective without too much analysis on individual resources availability and the damage just current levels of output are causing to our environment/resources. I've seen other research that claim we are already over the carrying capacity of Earth, some say by a large margin (e.g. carrying capacity is 2 billion people). I'm pretty sure humans are already using (and degrading) the majority of Earth's arable land, for instance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    This is a major flaw in science and basic economic comprehension. You could grow enough potatoes to feed the world enough calories with just the area of France. We could build huge apartment blocks surrounded by farmland and connected via tiny mono rails. We could build apartments and appliances and computers that last for a century. We could genetically engineer microalgae to taste like pancake butter. If we half the number of required workers, we'd save a mountain of resources on commute. We could design everything to be recyclable. Wind energy with Kites Power gives us near unlimited energy. Our footprint could be tiny but with the luxury of free time, learning, arts and living in a community and in nature.

    We are nowhere near carrying capacity, we're just over because we waste so much on consumerism, planned obsolescence, unsustainable crops and artificial scarcity.

    Our civilization is a fucking joke but science treats current conditions as if they were normal and immutable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Scientists know we need to change but unfortunately if we don't present our research in terms of how it will benefit the economy, those who actually control if things will change simply ignore it because their power of authority is based on the strength of the economy.

    It really fucking sucks. I have a degree in conservation science, and we were literally taught to always consider the economic perspective because that's literally the only part anyone with any power to affect legislation or industry practices will pay attention to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    because their power of authority is based on the strength of the economy

    Yeah I feel like this is the biggest open secret we never talk about. Like ideology is just a lie, like a nursery rhyme we repeat to keep calm, but completely irrelevant in the face of how well people are doing economically.

    But it's been shown that a serious green new deal or "war economy" would be great for the economy. Just not for the pocket books of those who own "the world" like factories or are part of the value chain that is based on either fossil fuel or industrial processes that emit greenhouse gases otherwise.

    Basically we could have looked at the previous investments and business value that would be lost or be "redistributed" if we had adapted. Like every long term investment in the world is at risk. It could be in the order of the value of the whole world, and that's the "power" this idea of climate adaptation was up against.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent