Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

I generally feel like any "solution" that starts with "have less people and less technology" is how the establishment has tricked us into accepting what they're going to do to us anyway. If we can't do better than "enlightened self-genocide," the universe is better off without us, so there's no reason not to make the bet that we can find technological solutions to technological problems.

The main thing is to make sure we don't take down the whole biosphere with us. As bad as climate change is, that's going to mess up life as we know it. Nuclear war, which seems inevitable if we don't stop centralizing, is significantly more final. Fortunately, our most exciting technologies are all about decentralizing. There's just this little quibble that they're mostly being used to buy stock in the heroin trade and trick poor people into doing the same. Hopefully we figure that out soon.

1

subrosa wrote

I generally feel like any "solution" that starts with "have less people and less technology"

What are you even talking about.

6

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

I'm guessing "degrowth" as you mean it isn't what it sounds like, then?

1

subrosa wrote

Maybe it's because "degrowth" is somewhat popular in German-speaking Europe, and maybe that's not the case anywhere else. But either way, it seems odd to me that you'd rather assume it's about "having less people and less technology" than do a quick search to find out:

Degrowth is a term used for both a political, economic, and social movement as well as a set of theories that critiques the paradigm of economic growth.

6

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

Okay, I can see how this can be different. Most of our consumption is currently devoted to war, so it's fair to say we can bring it down significantly without sacrificing much. The word without this context really carries dire implications, so it confused me.

1