Also bluntly: how would we do that ethically without severely restricting reproductive rights or "cleansing" populations?

Because I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the alternative is going to be no fun at all. One possibility is that we all end up agreeing that we should at least try to reduce our numbers. My parents brought me up with 'replacement' numbers so that we'd end up with a steady population. I'm not so sure if that was wise. And I'm aware that there are many predictions out there that our numbers will eventually top out (they will, either because we do it ourselves, voluntarily or because our resources will run out, an exponentially expanding population in a fixed environment always ends in collapse).

But unless we manage to reduce our impact on the environment in very drastic measures I don't see a way for the increased consumption and eventual survival of our societies as we know them today. In another comment someone offhandedly asked whether we should all want leisure yachts or not. The obvious answer to that is 'no'. But we probably also shouldn't all want vehicles and the ability to transport ourselves to the end of the world on a whim. Hard choices are ahead of us, the time for easy answers is long behind us.

Nature will be wanton, cruel, perhaps overshoot. It will be ugly and horrific. We will not be left in great shape. The only fairness it will possess is unpredictable randomness.

Or, we can do it. Harsh. Belt-tightening. Unpleasant conversations. Lengthy debates about worth. Whole societies wanting their turn at the trough. Deprivation. Lifeboat politics. The Cold Equations in a hot, hot world.

Everybody who decides that what they need to do is kill extremely large numbers of other people can just off themselves instead.

And so the scavengers will feast and the plagues will bloom again. And because no-one will agree, we will have little local wars over resources. Maybe someone will grab a warhead or two. Technology still keeps happening, so expect at least one plague to be targeted. And some group will have a "if we can't have it, nobody can," so a self-irradiated country will get to keep a resource out of some other group's hands. You'll get real genocides, then.

Nobody wants to participate in the one way of getting their hands bloody, pretending that they won't get bloody later on, up to the elbows.

Uh, no. I'm watching this garbage truck smash into the wall, same as you. We're all in the same boat.

We could easily be in 'adapt or die' territory somewhere in the next century.

I hope it's clear from context that I wasn't directing anything at you; we're basically in complete agreement.

The majority of people around me would rather invest in holidays and luxury goods than sustainability and aim to increase their footprint rather than that they reduce it. I'm just as guilty because I too live in a wealthy country. And even though I bike when I can and have spent a small fortune on making this house less dependent on outside energy I make myself no illusions: I'm still a net negative on the environment, far in excess of any developing world denizen. All I have to do to have that reinforced is to look at our trash can, food bill and fuel bill for the times when we do drive. Each of those alone is probably well in excess of our 'proper' budget that would be sustainable.

And for the life of me without stopping all activity I have no idea how I can further reduce it, this is just the world I happen to live in. I guess I could not have had kids, I guess I could live in a tiny shack. But overall everybody in the developed world will increase the problem by virtue of being alive. That's not good news, but I don't have anything better.

Rich people consume orders of magnitude more resources than poor people so if anything it's unethical for rich people to have children.

Exactly. The dismantling of Roe v Wade in the US comes to mind as a form of severely restricting reproductive rights.

The first thing takes years and we still don’t have feasible technology for the second. Not to mention that we would still have a lot of emissions from transport, manufacture, and meat consumption.

A technological silver bullet would be cool but the reality is that we don’t have one and there’s nothing in the near future. But reducing our consumption is something we can start doing now.

I'm not saying there's a silver bullet, I just think it's our decision as a society whether or not we invest in these technologies and do the work of developing them to the point that they actually have a chance of solving the problem. We were able to make rapid progress on nuclear in the 1940s and space flight in the 1960s. We have the resources, but it doesn't seem like we have the political will this time.

Now imagine it's not just some meaningless project at your job but a matter of life and death for the majority of life on Earth, which do you pursue?

The solution is crystal clear, we have real life working examples right now all over the world, for example the people living in Bangladesh are at a level of consumption that would actually be sustainable for all 8 billion of us to embrace.

The solution is clear, it’s just that we don’t like it, so we readily embrace the magical thinking that we can have our cake and eat it too.

> Personally, I would prefer to continue having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet.

Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, what we came from, and believe we deserve Saturday morning cartoons.

>Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, what we came from, and believe we deserve Saturday morning cartoons.

We came from a history of mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort. I think this nostalgia for the past is a golden age fallacy that needs to die. Technology has vastly improved human life and taking it away is essentially a call for reducing the standard of living for everybody.

The past wasn't sunbeams and frolicking in meadows, but your take on it is totally off base. The fact is that in every period of (Western) history, the wealthy have always lived incredibly comfortable and enjoyable lives. Modern technology isn't the determinant variable. They did it by harnessing their respective civilizations--it was absolutely not equitable. They rested atop a pyramid of other people. And so do you and I! We do not live in equitable times globally. To the extent that we've made any strides morally, it's only that we've substituted technology and industrialization for slavery and oppression. But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction.

I also think your characterization of all of history being "mostly starving, struggling for survival, dying of infections, dying during childbirth, being illiterate, and having little shelter or comfort" is frankly tripe. As if native peoples lives (over hundreds of thousands of years, indeed) are such utter trash that they need to be rescued from it by technology. "Oh, the poor brown people living such primitive lives, how sad. Let's do a mission to convert them to consumerism and fill their lives with junk, get them some jobs and atomize their tribes." I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America. It's frankly a white/western superiority complex and technology is just a fig leaf over it, a fundamental belief that today's way of life is the only one worth living and is so obviously superior that it cannot be questioned. I mean, those stupid native Americans and their huts. Good thing we fixed that, right?

This is reproducible across time, geography and culture. It is the basic condition of humanity.

> I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America. It's frankly a white/western superiority complex and technology is just a fig leaf over it, a fundamental belief that today's way of life is the only one worth living

I invite you to do the same, and ask the people you'd meet if they'd prefer if half their children died in their arms or if they'd prefer to live without electricity, or antibiotics, or fertilizer, or telecommunications, or vaccines, or, or, or....

> But under no configuration is modern life sustainable for 8 billion people, energy, living space, and raw materials wise, so this situation is going to keep drawing down the reservoir until there is a brutal correction.

If billions are going to die either way then instead of just giving up we should be trying everything in our power to improve our technology to increase the carrying capacity of the earth and escape another malthusian trap as we've done so many times in the past.

Unless of course you want billions to die.

As an aside, I'm very disturbed to realize this screed is coming from someone of your stature in the tech community.

Oh geesh. As if the lines of code I have written are what I put forth to vouch for this. We should divorce the tech fantasies from the meatspace realities. My opinions are based on the many, many, non-tech days that I've spent roaming the Earth[1] and have seen what humans as a whole are really up to. I've spent a whole lot of time picking up garbage off beaches and roadsides and over the course of my short life have already seen the forests and fields of my youth get gobbled up by Lowes's and Burger Kings and endless, endless sprawl and greed. When I see a hundred acres of corn get sold off for 6 million bucks and the only thing that is built on it is a gas station, it dawns me that it's just another transaction in a long, long line of trading what was here before for the now--forests, trees, raccoons, foxes, wolves, beatles, ants, birds, bees, all...woosh. I guess tomorrow it'll be a solar/wind-powered datacenter and we'll all pat ourselves on the back. But we're fruits or flowers on the tree of life, and we're sawing its branches off.

What I find disturbing, but not really surprising, given how virtualized and fake our worlds and imaginations have become, just how blinkered the tech sector is, as if exponential growth is going to continue forever and matter and energy are just going to suddenly take up our growthism mindset and help us boost our fever dreams of...what...a hundred billion people on Earth? Or of 8 billion Elon Musks whisking around the planet on private jets? I honestly don't know what people expect. The exponential curve would naturally become an S curve at some point, but unfortunately we aren't aiming for that. We've already overshot, and the reservoir we are drawing down will eventually run dry, and that's a brutal, brutal crash.

And if you take my opinion for advocating any fascist-sounding, eugenics-sounding, kill-the-baddies-sounding recommendation, then you're reading something in I didn't write. Like if pointing out we're headed for a cliff turns into an argument about the two options: magically sprout wings or all of us cut our legs off the knees. It's a total non-sequitur and binary thinking.

[1] And yeah, it's true that I've been able to roam said Earth because of tech that's been invented in the last 50-100 years. And yes, I am lucky. And yes we are having this conversation because of tech, and yes, I don't feel great about the unsustainability of the lifestyle that all of us, including me, live.

1. The human growth explosion already happened. We're dealing with the end stage of it over the next 50-100 years. There will never be a world of "a hundred billion people on Earth" since it turns out people don't want to reproduce that much. We'll hit peak human this century which means that we actually do have a shot at giving all people a decent lifestyle if we develop our technology and have abundant energy. Exponential growth is just not required. The Ehrlichian doomsday was never going to happen.

2. The past was actually really bad, even for the wealthiest. Disease, starvation, and violence were actually rampant. Rewinding the development clock in rich areas, or pausing it in developing areas, would be equivalent to the largest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated.

I find your rejection of this basic fact of history by writing things like: "if native peoples lives (over hundreds of thousands of years, indeed) are such utter trash that they need to be rescued from it by technology" or "Incredibly tone deaf, frankly, when most past humans had none of those things and yet dealt with it, living actual full lives. We've basically forgotten what we are, what we came from, and believe we deserve Saturday morning cartoons." to be wildly ignorant. These people suffered, for millions of years, and still they suffer today. Alleviating this suffering is not optional. Frankly only someone who grew up in the utterly privilege western culture could ever think or write something like this.

3. Humans are not separate from nature. This one is counter-intuitive and hard to swallow but the truth is all human activity is natural, Lowes and Burger Kings are just a natural as forests. Nature is utterly impersonal. It has no morality or opinion. Sometimes one species gets a lot of adaptions that let it dominate and reshape the rest of nature into the way it sees fit. Then other species evolve to fill the new niches that are created. We make a lot of plastic now, but bacteria are starting to evolve to eat it, is plastic bad for nature? It's a nonsensical question. Plastic is nature.

It's fine to not like this and prefer some parts of nature over others, I certainly do, but no part of it is "better" or "worse" it just IS. Any morality you assign to it is purely your own opinion.

> And if you take my opinion for advocating any fascist-sounding, eugenics-sounding, kill-the-baddies-sounding recommendation, then you're reading something in I didn't write

But surely you must realize that the malthusian collapse that you anticipate will be characterized by authoritarian violence. Times of resource scarcity always are. So by embracing a defeatist philosophy you implicitly endorse it.

Reminds me of this George Carlin bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rld0KDcan_w

We can fit far more than 8 billion people on the planet. Look how much of it is uninhabited by humans right now. The limit isn't living space, it's our ability to generate and distribute clean energy. Raw materials are a concern, but I don't think we're anywhere close to running out at the moment, and if we get our shit together technologically there are plenty of raw materials in the solar system.

>As if native peoples lives (over hundreds of thousands of years, indeed) are such utter trash that they need to be rescued from it by technology. "Oh, the poor brown people living such primitive lives, how sad. Let's do a mission to convert them to consumerism and fill their lives with junk, get them some jobs and atomize their tribes."

> I mean, those stupid native Americans and their huts. Good thing we fixed that, right?

I'm not sure why you needed to bring race/skin color into the discussion, or to attribute this view to me in that tone. How about we ask people what they want, rather than prescribing how they should live from our idealized/nostalgic view of native people? Let's see whether they want to live with an electric grid, medical care, and access to modern goods and services. If we judge by the number of industrializing societies across the world, it seems like people do want these things.

>I invite you to visit basically any place on Earth that is not Europe or North America.

I invite you to look at statistics like life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, healthcare outcomes, and access to food and housing. I think you'll find that most places in the world don't do as well on these metrics as Europe and North America. You're basically arguing that these people should stay in poverty. Again, I think you should ask the people you're talking about whether they want that.

Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and irrelevant.

> putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere

Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy...

What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in.

> having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet.

Where in the Paris Agreement did you read we shouldn't continue having those things?

How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?

Because it costs money.

Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper.

Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place.

Carbon capture is a scam.

We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identical reactors and streamlined regulatory oversight will hopefully make it cost competitive with fossil fuels.

I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.

But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.

But do we really need to be able to order some bullshit plastic shit from China for 2 dollars? I think it is only fair to give up that for local production, even if that costs 10 dollars for the same thing. Similarly, do I have to eat argentine beef in Europe? Sure, make it available for a hefty price for the rare occasion, but it really should not be generally available. Fruit that is local and is out of season? Don’t import it from Peru, simply wait for it to be in season, or buy some product that was made locally when it was in season, like jam. Strengthening local production would already massively decrease the number of ships we need for minimal inconvenience (hell, it might just be beneficial for the local economy). Do I even have to eat meat each day?

Similary, why don’t we ban most kinds of single-use plastics? How often do you buy milk that you plan on drinking while you walk somewhere? Couldn’t it be stored inside a container you have to bring back to the shop the next time, or buy again if not? Hell, most liquids meant for drinking could easily come in a few sizes of these reusable bottles. We have goddamn shops that can auto-subtract your bought items simply by camera imaging, don’t tell me we don’t have the tech to safely and hygienically refill containers, something we had 100 years ago.

As for societal change: do my parents have to live in a separate house with way too much space for them, having them see their grandchildren only occasionally (making parents having to pay for babysitters)? Only so that they can later be cared for by some random person? Sure, not everyone has parents worth living together with, but this tendency that it is somehow a failure to not move out of your parents home is imo very harmful to everyone involved - parent not having enough self-time, grandparents being alone, slowly deteriorating mentally, children not seeing grandparents enough (also, parents having to figure out parenting from zero).

These are not big sacrifices, but we will do them, one way or another. The question is, do we want to do it with self-agency, or let nature run its course?

You're just following what feels like it would be good for the environment (and maybe it is good for your local environment) but isn't actually impactful at a large scale.

You write eloquently, but futilely.

Instead, what if it's a mindset: Doing such things, and 1000 others, some of them vastly more important than others.

And you can add to the list (instead of just saying "it won't work").

E.g. high car gas taxes, so there'll be trains, buses and bike lanes instead for everyone.

That doesn't make any sense why would we make sacrifices that are not important.

The whole point of a capitalist economy is to “route around inefficiency”, in the same way the internet is designed to “route around damage”. Any single player or even a large contingent of players, who act inefficiently, are only increasing the alpha available for another player to exploit.

“Inefficiency” in this sense is anything that doesn’t maximize personal benefit - profit or other quality of life. Anything that is legal according to the rules of the game (or tolerated by society) is going to happen whether it’s you that does it or someone else.

The only long term solution is that if this is what needs to happen, we have to encode that into “the rules” so everyone plays by that rule. Personal recycling or personal consumption reduction does nothing at a social level, and in fact is pushed as a deliberate stalling tactic to avoid and stall those political actions which could have a real impact.

This is also the problem with bitcoin - any one player choosing not to participate in mining only increases the reward for the remaining players who will continue to participate. If there is only one person on the planet willing to mine, she gets all the rewards. So simply choosing not to mine does nothing, you’re just transferring profit to someone else.

Humanity has already built the first AIs, they are emergent paperclip-maximizers encoded into the bylaws of corporations and market structures. And they will route around any attempt to un-maximize paperclip production according to whatever levers we continue to give them. If you don’t want people to eat as much beef, you have to build that rule into the system, it’ll never happen due to personal-level changes in behavior.

Governments can alter the rules of the game we play and they are (indirectly) controlled by us, as least in democractic countries.

similarly, even a country-level tax, you're only making it cheaper for other countries who don't care. We saw this play out with Russian oil last year - banning it from the West didn't make it go away, it just made it cheaper for certain other states to import it. The commodity market is global.

The fundamental point I'm trying to make here is the "capitalism routes around inefficiency/morality". That's what it's designed to do, in the same way the internet routes around infrastructure damage (or censorship etc, which is fundamentally infrastructure damage). By taking a moral stand, you only increase the alpha available for other players to exploit.

These "individual moralistic stand" approaches like personal-scale recycling are inherently less effective than taxing producers, or outright bans. The reason they are pushed is because they are ineffective, and because they stall out the political will to adopt real solutions that would be effective.

(E.g. india did buy up russia’s oil cheaper, but if there would have been a carbon tax in the eu with serious tariffs on products made in a not eco-friendly way, their usage might not have increased as much)

that is the observable impact though. perhaps the bitcoin example is more straightforward - if only one person on the entire planet is willing to mine, they get the entire block rewards of the entire network.

this is an extreme example, but if you have a small number of corporations who don't give a shit about environmentalism and pursue maximum profit within whatever the law allows, you get to pretty much the same result. People doing good in one area only increases the alpha available for another player to exploit.

capitalism literally is the removal of morality from economic planning - by making it about personal interests and profit, you ensure that if one player has those uncomfortable morals, that other players will take care of the problem and ensure maximum profit is pursued regardless. It's an Autonomous System designed to eliminate morality from the field of economic activity.

When enough people change their behavior, that can have an effect. And I suppose you're right that that effect is smaller than what one would hope (for the reasons you mentioned), and laws or taxes would have more effect

Further, even if what you advocate isn't exactly harmful, just neutral (ie eating local vegetables instead of imported, nevermind that the carbon footprint difference is negligible) wasting valuable political capital on useless gestures is objectively wrong.

So do you want governments to legislate that you must live with your parents? Or that you must not eat meat? Otherwise it's fine and good that a small share of the populace will make these choices on their own, but we need an order of magnitude more.

Oh how I wish I could just bring a reusable bottle to some dispenser at the store and refill directly. Milk, common juices, soaps, etc. So many bottles going into trash/recycling all the time.

It’s not going to be politically feasible since 99% of people don’t want to live that way. Thus we have to pursue alternatives.

Maybe technology will help us achieve that last minute stop we so need, but we have to start somewhere.

Complete with language about believers and non-believers

So, the first one taking decades and the second one being a meme """solution""" for the science illiterate?

If CDR is a meme solution for the science illiterate, then why does the IPCC include it as a key mitigation strategy?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/spm-headline-st...

>C.11 The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved. The scale and timing of deployment will depend on the trajectories of gross emission reductions in different sectors. Upscaling the deployment of CDR depends on developing effective approaches to address feasibility and sustainability constraints especially at large scales. (high confidence)

This is either dishonest or ignorant. We can make a huge difference by moving faster to solar, eating a lot less meat, living in denser settings rather than suburbs, living in smaller houses, switching to heat pumps, not driving huge trucks and SUVs, avoid so much waste particularly in food, driving less, etc.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating...

I agree that we can all do better on our individual choices. But we're not going to convince billions of people to that in the next 10 years. We need to fix the problem now, and the solution is to power our current level of growth with clean energy.