Yeah, I’d really like conservation of energy to take place, using only what we really need. Unfortunately, we are in an economic system that values using something as precious as oil as fast as possible in order to grow—meaning it will be harder for future generations to produce stuff like mosquito nets, antiseptics or aspirin, as they are all derived from oil. I talk about it in part 3.
For comments, it depends. For general comments that everyone could find more interesting, the summary post is probably more adapted (probably where conservation could go). For comments related more particularly to data related to one topic (transition or the economy or actions), then go part 1/2/3. If you think there is a useful comment to make in the Google Docs, go ahead because it allows to target specifically one sentence in particular.
OK, I will put my conservation thoughts in the comments of the summary post.
The speed of posting and conversation changes on this forum is way faster than I can match, by the time I have something decent written up, conversation will have moved on.
Keep an eye out for my reply though, I’ll come around when I can. Your work on this parallels a model I have of a pathway for our civilization coping with global warming. I call it “muddling through.” I know, catchy, right? How things go this century is very sensitive to short time scales, I’m thinking 10-20 year differences make all kinds of difference, and in my view, most needed changes are in human behavior and politics, not technology developments. So, good and bad.
I think the next 10-20 years will indeed be decisive. And yes, most needed changes are in human behavior and politics, not technology development. Reminds me of an essay called “There’s no App for That” by Richard Heinberg, where he exposes that, for problems of climate, energy, inequality of biodiversity loss :
“The real problem is that […] we are asking technology to solve problems that demand human moral intervention—ones that require ethical decisions, behavior change, negotiation, and sacrifice. By mentally shifting the burden for solving our biggest problems onto technology, we are collectively making fundamental moral and tactical errors ; moral, because we are abdicating our own human agency; tactical, because purely technological solutions are inadequate to these tasks. We need to rethink what we delegate to machines, and what we take responsibility for directly as moral beings”
Thanks for the feedback!
Yeah, I’d really like conservation of energy to take place, using only what we really need. Unfortunately, we are in an economic system that values using something as precious as oil as fast as possible in order to grow—meaning it will be harder for future generations to produce stuff like mosquito nets, antiseptics or aspirin, as they are all derived from oil. I talk about it in part 3.
For comments, it depends. For general comments that everyone could find more interesting, the summary post is probably more adapted (probably where conservation could go). For comments related more particularly to data related to one topic (transition or the economy or actions), then go part 1/2/3. If you think there is a useful comment to make in the Google Docs, go ahead because it allows to target specifically one sentence in particular.
OK, I will put my conservation thoughts in the comments of the summary post.
The speed of posting and conversation changes on this forum is way faster than I can match, by the time I have something decent written up, conversation will have moved on.
Keep an eye out for my reply though, I’ll come around when I can. Your work on this parallels a model I have of a pathway for our civilization coping with global warming. I call it “muddling through.” I know, catchy, right? How things go this century is very sensitive to short time scales, I’m thinking 10-20 year differences make all kinds of difference, and in my view, most needed changes are in human behavior and politics, not technology developments. So, good and bad.
Ok, take your time !
I think the next 10-20 years will indeed be decisive. And yes, most needed changes are in human behavior and politics, not technology development. Reminds me of an essay called “There’s no App for That” by Richard Heinberg, where he exposes that, for problems of climate, energy, inequality of biodiversity loss :