189
Q: “Are we doomed?” A: “We would be, if not for the amazing developments in renewable energy.” (powering-the-planet.ghost.io)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I wasn't aware just how good the news is on the green energy front until reading this. We still have a tough road in the short/medium term, but we are more or less irreversibly headed in the right direction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's nice that you're hopeful, but green energy in capitalism isn't enough. We need degrowth or a revolution to actually save not just humanity, but the planet as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Degrowth is coming. Birth rate is below replacement in essentially all developed countries and is steeply dropping in less developed ones as well. We’re on track for population to level off and start dropping in only a few decades, as current larger generations die off.

    We just need to hope that “natural” depopulation isn’t too late for addressing climate change.

    But I’d argue it’s likely to drop too steeply, further destabilizing societies. Think of it like climate change in the 1970’s: we can fix it now with minimal impact, or we could wait until it’s a crisis. We need to take steps now to make having more children a more attractive choice

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Degrowth isn't just about population, or even about it at all. Degrowth is about doing the opposite of what capitalism forces us to do, infinite growth on a finite planet.

    But also, the last thing we should do is incentivize birthing more people. We have increasing amounts of automation technologies, we don't need more people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Robots are cool and all, but considering our (in a larger sense) children is literally the future of our civilization. The next generation is why it’s important to fix our mistakes, to leave things better than we found them, to open new opportunities and greater potential. Automation can enable that but is not a goal in itself, or is a short term goal for personal gain.

    So yes, I’ll agree that we seem to have passed the healthy carrying capacity of the planet and should fix that. However I’ll strongly disagree that it would be a good thing to drop below the sustainability of current society, innovation, science, and I’ll strongly disagree it’s desirable to drop population fast enough to destabilize societies, economies, or to cause human suffering. That’s what we my be headed for. A few tweaks now, might help population level off and gradually decline without causing suffering, and hopefully level off at a healthy total.

    Let’s fix our mistakes while still setting the next generation up for success, not give in to misery and root for disaster

    Edit: if you read the Wikipedia article on degrowth, there’s surprisingly little focus on reducing population and it really isn’t a goal, although an important tool. Pretty much all of the precepts contradict sudden population declines or the aftereffects of that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Yes I know degrowth isn't about population, that's what I said?

    But if population naturally declines, I really don't think it's a good idea to try to reverse that trend. Less people means less resources consumed, and better quality of life for those children. Prioritize the people already alive over those that aren't born. We have more than enough people in the world, and a lot of those people's potential is not fully reached due to inequality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent