Is technology and environmentalism compatible? Is technology neutral?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Well maybe that is true and maybe it will be better if the cycle is repeated long enough - also a kind of evolution I suppose - those ways of life that are unsustainable collapse. It is a bit doubtful if industrialized civilization will occure again in the same way. Any future civilization will not have coal or oil. They will have only the trash heaps of this civilization as metal sources and much of the land will not be suitable for agriculture anymore (due to land degradation, erosion and climate catastrophe). If a new civilization arises, it would have from the beginning to do so with renewable energy sources and limited resource availability. Maybe this would indeed lead to a civilization that is very much aware of the balance they have to take into account? But this is distant future fiction now...

I completely disagree. A new civilisation wouldn't happen overnight, humans existed for millions of years before developing even the basics of civilisation such as extended communities, the use of metals and development of agriculture. Anyway, 'limited' resources have always been extended - I rememebr when I went to school reading that oil would run out in what was now around 5 years ago. In the 70s, they were saying it would run out in the 1990s or so. Not to mention the initially much lower rate of use.Perhaps in time they'd replace the resources with better means, perhaps not. Either way, it's only theoretical.

So what - you are building the future on hope alone? On hope, that a miracle will happen just in time that "saves us all and the planet"??? Isn't that a bit salvationist?

No. I am resigned to the fact humans are dying. I was sating one likely scenario (assuming progress is not abandoned). whether it will happen in time to avoid extinction is another issue. Either way, the appropriate technology is here for the most part, for example fusion reactions can be produced, they just need to improve the stability as the key to creating longer term and more controlled ones. We've had the technology (and knowledge) to reach Mars or the asteroid belt since the 1960s, people are just too scared to use it.

How do you want to balance them really? To run a car, you need fuel, to build a car, you need materials, to make an electric car, you need different materials, so feed more people, you need more land,...

Population again? I thought I already explained my point there.

That is simply wrong. Natural extinction rates are several orders of magnitude below current rates. There is plenty of studies about that. Some species yes - a frog species living in some pond only will be gone if the next ice age swallows it, but what is happening now is crazy. At current rates, some estimates say that at the end of the century, 50% of the species will be gone. Land degradation leads to a yearly loss of 1% in agricultural viable land (despite adding new one by deforestation), this will lead to a decrease by 50% in 2050. Don't tell me, that the current way of life is not destroying the planet.

I never said it wasn't.
I never said it was the only thing that was. Not only do undocumented species go unrecognised - MANY species go extinct naturally, even more so if you are more strict on the definition of species.

How?

Again, by using them responsibly, and ignoring less sustainable ones, so that they can last as long as sentient life inhabiting the planet will.

It is not easy really - to wrap the head around this. But it is theoretical, yes, it is philosophical and admittedly my main focus in the debates here are to show the reasons for the dilemma and the need for it to stop. Collapse is one way to stop it. What other ways are in sight? Remember it has to happen soon, because the longer we wait, the worse it gets. Some ideas that have been proposed have shown signs of not beeing real long term solutions (pumping water from the ground onto fields in desert areas), others are not even proven to be applicable to the problem - certainly not within the timescale required (cheap nuclear fusion, asteroid mining).

So I am a bit negative here - talking mostly about what is going wrong and that it has to stop and not giving you a bright alternative you like (as you disregard anything that reminds you of "regression" as inadequade). But so far, the solutions I have heard from anyone in here to solve the problem otherwise are either ineffective (change lightbulbs, write your government, buy green products) or "potential future technologies" (bascially meaning that we do not know if, how and when they will exist).

Isn't diacounting things as ineffective just as bad? Particularly lights, as lighting is a HUGE use of energy worldwide, a 1% saving in all energy use is a saving of 150GW. If (using pure example figures here) something was 10% of use and the saving was 10%, that is that 1% saving, of 150GW, or more energy than most countries use.
So since it's not a complete loss of ability to use resources, is it not worth bothering with?
Also, I noticed an interesting statistic just to show the true scale of resources available, the total energy that falls on the Earth per year is 10^17W, which can increase by orders of magnitude with, for example, the use of satellites.

A quote of one of the people in the political landscape of the country I live in said it nicely in respect to nuclear power: We are flying a plane without having an airport to land it.

Despite knowing how to build one and having everything available if only people would see that we have to wait for it to be finished.

This is not coherent - you state a bit above, that "Humans are capable of adapting, which is their only true strength, but means they are capable of much greater success than other species, in addition to sentience." - If that is the way humans differe from other animals, if that is the characteristic that justifies humans to exploit the planet and consume 40% of its photosynthetic capacity, how can you then say, that despite this, they do not have any special responsability???[/quote]
Another species could have done the same and likely eventually would have if they hadn't been beaten to it - possibly even reached sentience.

Also, "ignoring one in favour of the other is as bad as the other" is not true. The world can go on very well without cellphones and cars, actually it will probably do better, while humans and cell phones do depend on the world around them. Without cellphones and cars, people in 1000 or 10.000 years will still be able to live in Spain and breathe air and drink water and eat plants there. If that goes away (climate change is going to turn many areas into a desert, water is polluted, nuclear waste is endangering the storage sites...), humans will not live in comfort anymore. In fact, this would probably kill 95% of the people with the remaining ones fighting over a few remaining liveable spots.

And that would happen how?
The truth is, yes, not everything exists to make life easier, but to make it HAPPIER. If there was nothing new to do, nothing to experience, then most people would probably just feel they might as well give up.

See - one of the two things can exist without the other, the other cannot. So if you really do favour that choice towards a higher "quality of life" over the environment, and that IS what you have said above - I really wonder how you can say of yourself, that you feel close to the NA'Vi. For them, the choice would be utterly clear.

Wow, this is what I mean... You really don't understand what I mean at all, not to mention that was harsh, nice try at claiming moral high ground though, but it won't work.
The Na'vi don't have what is on Earth, but they have OTHER things, things humans will likely never have. Those are what make it worth it for them. We don't have those. Would the Na'vi want to regress to before they rode ikran? Would they want to lose the ability to make tsaheylu?
We don't have those , so we only have what we can make of life. There is NO point to life if all you do is just exist. That is why I think we can actually improve, but without sacrificing biodiversity.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You really don't understand what I mean at all.

I don't either.

--------------------

Originally Posted by Human No More

If humans remain stuck on Earth, resources WILL eventually run out, even with minimal use.

Originally Posted by Human No More

It is perfectly possible to utilise existing resources to last for as long as the Earth will.

Conflict?

--------------------

Originally Posted by Human No More

Population again? I thought I already explained my point there.

No one talked about the population.
This was about balancing environment and your definition of "wellbeing and quality of life"

--------------------
As for your point about the population, it's still rather unclear to me.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Population has to be part of the balance. I would guess you're probably opposed to space exploration (more technology) but it allows growth without overpopulation.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Why such a large population? It is already too large, it would make more sense to stabilise it at a lower population with better quality of life.

--------------------

Originally Posted by Human No More

Another species could have done the same and likely eventually would have if they hadn't been beaten to it - possibly even reached sentience.

Just because a nonexistent thing "could have done the same", doesn't make us any less responsible or our actions.

--------------------

Originally Posted by Human No More

Wow, this is what I mean... You really don't understand what I mean at all, not to mention that was harsh, nice try at claiming moral high ground though, but it won't work.
The Na'vi don't have what is on Earth, but they have OTHER things, things humans will likely never have. Those are what make it worth it for them. We don't have those. Would the Na'vi want to regress to before they rode ikran? Would they want to lose the ability to make tsaheylu?
We don't have those , so we only have what we can make of life. There is NO point to life if all you do is just exist. That is why I think we can actually improve, but without sacrificing biodiversity.

You're completely missing the point here. Tsaheylu or riding an Ikran are in complete harmony with the nature. Cars and cellphones are not.

As for "not everything exists to make life easier, but to make it HAPPIER", unlike Ikran and Tsaheylu, cars and cellphones are just dead pieces of random material.

I bet that everything the Na'vi have created, every tool, every instrument, every piece of clothing, is merely for making things easier. Definitely not to bring happiness simply by existing. Happiness comes from the contact with other living beings. For example: Humans can live in miserable conditions and even be happy, as long as they have a community or just a single friend to share everything with. Having a car wouldn't help the slightest bit.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Fosus

I don't either.

--------------------
Conflict?

Fair enough, I should have said 'as long as humanity will' and clarified that all resources will run out eventually, but whether or not this will happen before the extinction of humans / destruction of Earth / loss of Earth's kinetic energy / death of the sun is another matter, which is hugely dependent on the rate they are used at.

As for your point about the population, it's still rather unclear to me.

Earth is overpopulated. ONE strategy is to significantly reduce the population. Another is to spread it out more - move excess off Earth. I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

Just because a nonexistent thing "could have done the same", doesn't make us any less responsible or our actions.

Neither does it give humans any special quality.

You're completely missing the point here. Tsaheylu or riding an Ikran are in complete harmony with the nature. Cars and cellphones are not.

What if they weren't? Would anti-technology people continue their 'holier than thou' attitude against them?
A life without meaning, without enjoyment and happiness is completely pointless. That doesn't justify destruction for its own sake, but what is reasonable. You can make such an argument with hunting, for example.

As for "not everything exists to make life easier, but to make it HAPPIER", unlike Ikran and Tsaheylu, cars and cellphones are just dead pieces of random material.

Which give us means to accomplish things that are not directly possible and as such, enjoy life.

I bet that everything the Na'vi have created, every tool, every instrument, every piece of clothing, is merely for making things easier. Definitely not to bring happiness simply by existing.

Read the survival guide again.

Happiness comes from the contact with other living beings. For example: Humans can live in miserable conditions and even be happy, as long as they have a community or just a single friend to share everything with. Having a car wouldn't help the slightest bit.

Yet they allow us to actually have contact with others, to experience places we could otherwise never reach, to experience the whole world and not some tiny part of it.
Either way, I'm not going to respond to any more of such analogies as the truth is, I'd give up everything for THAT life without a second though, but I can't expect to lose everything for nothing in return, I can't expect to try to survive when for thousands of years, evolution has directed humans away from that being that did survive like that.

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks - arguably, even concepts like making fires. Many would likely die, and I'm sure many of the people who survived would have a new appreciation for thing in life that do improve the quality.

[Fosus]

A very good and thoughtful post Tsyal Makto. I agree with you.


I'll multi quote some posts to keep track of the discussion. Hell of a job but too many times it seems like we forget what were were talking about 2 posts back.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

You said
"It (pupulation) is already too large, it would make more sense to stabilise it at a lower population". Clearly stating you think this is the better choise. However, thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Human No More

Neither does it give humans any special quality.

I disagree. Sentience. (the same point you have used in many of your posts to put humans above other living beings bites back here) Humans know whether their actions are wrong or right. Our definitions of wrong and right just happen to be different which is the major reason we are opposed in this debate.

Originally Posted by Human No More

What if they weren't? Would anti-technology people continue their 'holier than thou' attitude against them?

Tsaheylu and Ikran (given that they existed like presented in Avatar) are not technology. This makes it pointless to compare them to technology (at least in this subject).

Originally Posted by Human No More

Which give us means to accomplish things that are not directly possible and as such, enjoy life.

Right. "Bringing happiness" and "helping you to enjoy life" are very different. You can enjoy many things that eventually let you down. The instances are countless. I'm keeping my head here. Dead pieces of whatever, while keeping your mind preoccupied, and letting you "enjoy life", do not bring happiness.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks - arguably, even concepts like making fires. Many would likely die, and I'm sure many of the people who survived would have a new appreciation for thing in life that do improve the quality.

I agree with you here. Though I don't know anyone who is completely opposing the technology. Anyway, I would like to clarify that I against technology, but neither I am black/white regarding this subject.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Earth is overpopulated. ONE strategy is to significantly reduce the population. Another is to spread it out more - move excess off Earth. I didn't say either was any better or more plausible, just that they are two different solutions.

The last part saves it. Because otherwise I would have had to point at that it is so extremely unlikely that space travel would in any way solve Earths overpopulation. Was Europe half empty after America was "found"? Not really - the discovery of new lands to conquer did not lead to a significant long-term decrease in the Settlers original locality

Originally Posted by Human No More

[on cellphones and cars beeing unsustainable]A life without meaning, without enjoyment and happiness is completely pointless. That doesn't justify destruction for its own sake, but what is reasonable.

"Reasonable destruction" - SRSLY?
Anyways - the identification of these gadgets and "meaning" is striking, as is the perceived necessity of having them for happiness.
Do you really think, people are now (with cellphones) actually happier and have more meaningful lifes than when my generation was young and we had "only" regular phones? How does it relate to each other to call a friend 5 times a day on the cellphone to visiting that friend IRL?

Yet they allow us to actually have contact with others, to experience places we could otherwise never reach, to experience the whole world and not some tiny part of it.

So these things are tools - to achieve something else that then actually brings the meaning and happiness. The happiness is from having contact with others and from being in new places. It think that is an important distinction as to reach these things,there are other means.

I think anyone who completely opposes technology should try surviving without it, without a large group of people to rely on (remember, anything you can't find naturally is technology, including clothes, tents, any weapons for hunting that are more than just sticks and rocks)

That is nonsense. It relates to the way of life proposed as a fullblown capitalist industrial exploitive civilization relates to your worldview!
The point is neiter to be alone nor to abandon all tools. Under such conditions, humans will suffer and die. It is as far from the way humans thrive best as the current society. Humans need a group of people, a tribe or band to survive. And they also need tools. The distinction is, that tools can be made by each person or within a small group (<Dunbars Number), while technology needs a large scale complex mass society with exploitation of resources and wage labor to exist.
There are indeed a couple of things that emerge and I am surprised that you did not mention them yourself as they sort of support the idea that civilization could actually go somewhere, so I will sort of shoot at myself by mentioning them, but I want them to be in the discussion.
One of them is the open source movement (which allows people to cooperate freely and without wage labor on their own account). The more interesting one is the fab/rep movement, which founds on the idea to have microscale production units that can be built and used by small groups of people and that can produce a variety of things. They do of course have flaws (like still demaning importation of resources, mainly metals and plastics), but the do allow small groups or even single persons to fabricate items, including the means of production themselves. By the above definition, these would then be tools and not technologies, as they are in complete control of such a "tribe" or a single person, which makes them identical to a stone axe or a bow.

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Even beyond simply the environmental message, is the underlining message of humanity needing to find true balance with nature, beyond what the current "green" mindset is.

There is even a term for this, I found out recently. It is called "deep ecology" (nice to have a box to crawl into )

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Because in actuality, there is no "environment," where all the rest of the non-human plant and animal life is domed off in a seperate biosphere from us. There is no "human world" and "natural world," there is just "the world." Period. No matter how much we believe otherwise, humanity, and all it's baggage, is a part of the world, the same world that nature shares. The biggest downfall of the current environmentalist movement is this separatist attitude

There is a book on that subject called "Ecology without Nature", that argues that this duality is in fact nonsense and I thzink one has to agree on that. The danger that lies within that argument is of course that it can lead to a new dualism of how to act upon it that is harder to define in terms of what is "best". That dualism is on one side occupied by the mindset you describe - to find a balance, to feel equal to the animals and the trees and the rivers - to strive for harmony. The other side is that it gives an excuse to do almost anything with the argument that if humans and their acts are part of the world/Nature, anything they do is by definition natural, even polluting rivers and blowing up mountains. This plays into the hands then of those who even accept technology as life and therefore say that a road full of colorful diverse cars is of similar inherent value than a river full of colorful and diverse fish.
If we accept the dissolution of the duality between unique human technology and the rest of the natural world, we will need to find new ways of defining what we regard as desireable and what not. I think then it becomes vital to listen to intuition and emotion again, which is something the world has forgotten to do in terms of technology. Because we will have to make a distinction between an act that pollutes a river, one that consumes the river and one that does not do so. We all know in our hearts what is "right" and "wrong" in these acts, but it is a lot harder to define it in terms of the materialistic world view that is prevalent. It leads directly to the economic view of the world with a "price tag" attached to every thing. Only then can we in terms of economics calculate if the damage that is done compensates for the benefits gained. And in doing this, the doors are open to an increasingly complex (who defines value, who calculates all the impacts and benefits) and insane system of utilitarianism.

I am not argueing to stick to the dualism (actually I agree in that it makes things worse), but I see a danger in it as well as a chance and the need to clearly think about how to deal with the pressing questions beyond dropping that duality.

Originally Posted by Tsyal

Though I am a bit more technologically liberal than aurora, I'm with her on this topic, at least in regards to how she views nature.

Haha - I think that is a bit of a misconception. I know, I come off utterly anti-technology here, but that stems from a couple of points like my distinction between technology and tools and in terms of a discussion on true sustainability. I do not say, that there has to be a big bang and everyone living only with rocks and sticks - I think a better solution to the problem of technology would definitely involve a reduction in many areas while keeping others for a while. I think, and probably agree widely with HNM here, that by reducing impact drastically (!), keeping the technologies (or rather techniques and tools) that really are truely beneficial to human experience and that are having a low impact on other humans and nonhumans humanity could go a long way. Eventually, even these would not be sustainable, but there would be a long period of innovation that could create truely sustainable ways. By giving the world a chance to coexist with humans, a basis for a long term, thoughtful development would be laid. It can still be debated if that would "lead anywhere" given the "constraint" of sustainability, but it would at least be some sort of balance. Sadly, I consider the likelyhood of this happening voluntarily and in the timeframe required so extremely unlikely that I feel depressed.

Scientists have said for the last 20 years that biodiversity/the oceans/the climate could be saved if people would act now and decisively by switching to this or that new and more sane technology within a few years, by reducing emissions within a decade and so on. They were largely ignored and now as their timeframe runs out, we see that they have been right, that this would have been the chance to act. Nowadays, people claim the same again. They say that if we reduce CO2 emissions to the levels prior to 1990 within a decade, we could still have a global warming of "only 2°C". Have you seen Kopenhagen and the predictions for the conference coming up? Nothing again. Weak promises at best or downright opposition even.

The steps that would have to be taken are drastic and have to be realized quickly, but there is not even a hint that this is happening - just as 20 years ago. This is why I have no hope that this will work.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

"Reasonable destruction" - SRSLY?

For example - I buy paper. I understand that for it to be produced, trees are destroyed. Whenever possible, I try buy paper that is FSC approved, meaning that the forests it comes from are managed and inspected and for every tree destroyed, at least two are planted plus no entire areas are destroyed. I don't like the fact of what has to happen, but I do still find it necessary. In the end, what hatters is that we just leave something like we found it as a minimum, preferably in a better state. If we kill an animal, we kill a weak one who has a lower chance of survival naturally and avoid killing any that would harm the population such as the only fertile individual or one that is caring for young. If we cut down a tree for wood, we only take a few from one place and plant replacements. We give areas a chance to recover.

Anyways - the identification of these gadgets and "meaning" is striking, as is the perceived necessity of having them for happiness.
Do you really think, people are now (with cellphones) actually happier and have more meaningful lifes than when my generation was young and we had "only" regular phones? How does it relate to each other to call a friend 5 times a day on the cellphone to visiting that friend IRL?

None of which has any relevance to the neutrality or otherwise of their existence (plus I say that yes, some people do use things unnecessarily, but on the other hand, without any communication , I would not know 75% of my best friends, and it would be a 45 minute trip even to ask an AFK friend something.

So these things are tools - to achieve something else that then actually brings the meaning and happiness. The happiness is from having contact with others and from being in new places. It think that is an important distinction as to reach these things,there are other means.

Yes, I completely agree, but if they don't exist, then those opportunities are not available.

As I said in the previous post, much of this discussion is interesting, and perhaps I have been gradually driven into replying without making an overall more coherent point, but in the end it is unrelated to the actual topic - the NEED for technology is completely different to neutrality.

I think, and probably agree widely with HNM here, that by reducing impact drastically (!), keeping the technologies (or rather techniques and tools) that really are truely beneficial to human experience and that are having a low impact on other humans and nonhumans humanity could go a long way.

Now this, I can agree with. Realyl, the ebst of both worlds is what I consider the ideal situation.

Eventually, even these would not be sustainable, but there would be a long period of innovation that could create truely sustainable ways.

Hasn't that been my point for the entire thread?

[auroraglacialis]

HNM, I have to apologize in one point, and that is "that you feel close to the NA'Vi. For them, the choice would be utterly clear" - that was a bit too personal, and I apologize to have written this in a rush.

Originally Posted by Human No More

I completely disagree. A new civilisation wouldn't happen overnight, humans existed for millions of years before developing even the basics of civilisation such as extended communities, the use of metals and development of agriculture.

And who says that agriculture and metals would be the way to go? In fact these are the things that do not work out so well. If a civilization could rise that is not dependent on agriculture and thereby on deforestation and tearing up the soil - now that would be something!

Anyway, 'limited' resources have always been extended - I rememebr when I went to school reading that oil would run out in what was now around 5 years ago.

Not really - The uncertainty may be some years, but for many resource divisions it is actually true. Oil production in the US has already peaked, coal mining in Germany is in decline and so on. The only way that an increase persisted is by finding new resources that play the same role. Like tar sands that can be turned into oil.
Also, the statement that it will "run out" is of course never true - what happens is that production declines and/or investment in energy and ecological devastation rises. It is quite evident - to produce fossil fuel, a few years ago people drilled a hole in the ground and pumped it. Now there is deep sea drilling, tar sands, hydrofracking, mountain top removal and oil shale mining. The area affected is getting larger and the risks greater. That IS peak oil in action.
And take a look at this nice one here: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/33/33646/33646_1.jpg it is a graph from the IEA, not exactly a treehugging green organization. What you see there is a plateau, that can only slightly grow if there is an increase in "unconventional oil" (=tar sands) and by that nice light blue patch, that is getting bigger each year. What this means is that there would have to be new findings of conventional oil fields at a rather constant rate. This is speculative at best. But I dont want to start on peak oil here, just saying that the famous hubbert curve has a plateau and that this plateau is called "peak oil" and that what can be seen on the graph above is (and they use optimistic esitmates) very much like a plateau.

Sure - there will be oil in 30 years - no doubt. But it may take even bigger chunks out of the forests of Canada to mine it, may involve even higher risks of oil spills or eventually the beginning environmental destruction of Antarctica.

Either way, the appropriate technology is here for the most part, for example fusion reactions can be produced, they just need to improve the stability as the key to creating longer term and more controlled ones. We've had the technology (and knowledge) to reach Mars or the asteroid belt since the 1960s, people are just too scared to use it.

I doubt that. Many of the technologies that were believed to "save us all" turned out to be not very good at that. There are quite definite reasons for why these technologies are not applied. To "cover the Sahara in solar panels" (just to pick one of them at random) for example would require unimaginable investments in energy (from fossil fuels), REEs (a limited mineral resource) - it would also require political stability and protection against sand storms and it would create a dependency of industrial states on countires in Africa.
The technology to travel to Mars are certainly there, but what is the point? Probably you can also send a ship to the asteroids, but what then? Attach a big old rocket drive to an asteroid and haul it back to Earth for mining? That is SciFi.
If civilization continues to exist long enough to deplete Earths resources enough, I guess they will start mining in Space by investing humongous amounts of energy into that. But the economic balance of this is quite devastating. What I mean is that the point at which this is viable equals to an Earth so depleted of resources that the thought alone makes me weep.

Population again? I thought I already explained my point there.

Not exactly. In one post, you say that we need less people on the planet to make it work, in the next you bash me for suggesting a path that will eventually bring down population.... So what - population reduction is good if it involves the remaining people to live in high tech, but bad if they are living with less technology??

Not only do undocumented species go unrecognised - MANY species go extinct naturally, even more so if you are more strict on the definition of species.

still - humans are right now causing the extinction of 1000 times more species daily than the natural rate. Some argue that this is just a natural mass extinction in progress, but with humans having influence on ALL ecosystems on the planet, I think that is completely unlikely (not to mention that there is no other cause that has been found)

Again, by using them responsibly, and ignoring less sustainable ones, so that they can last as long as sentient life inhabiting the planet will.

Ok, that is an interesting suggestion. People use only very sustainable technologies, low population and voluntarily not use the technologies that destroy the planet. The question is how likely this is? If there is a short and dirty way to create something marvellous, people are just too likely to take it. If one can use biotechnology, genetic alteration, stem cells plus a bit of untested nanotechnology to create an Ikran within 20 years - could you resist the temptation, even if you know that the technology behind it was not thoroughly tested ("but it looks harmless enough") and that doing so would delay the development by 60 years?
You said it yourself actually - for some people a rapid development is part of the things they define as basic desires...

Isn't diacounting things as ineffective just as bad? Particularly lights, as lighting is a HUGE use of energy worldwide

I am not saying that one should not do these. Heck, I am using them, I am using low temperatures in the washing machine, dry the clothes on the balcony and not in a dryer, heat my room in winter to just 14-16°C, do not use air conditioning and so on - but I do not fall to the illusion that this is anywhere near enough. Your estimate is about right - if all people switch to lower energy light bulbs, it will save about 1% of the energy. I doubt that this would even offset the increase in energy consumption of a single year.

Despite knowing how to build one and having everything available

A safe storage for nuclear power for 1.000.000 years? Where?

Another species could have done the same and likely eventually would have if they hadn't been beaten to it - possibly even reached sentience.

So what? Then they would sit here and talk. No difference - and "others would have done it, too" is really not an argument.
If it would be, China (and in a few years Africa) can rightfully claim to be eligible to poison the oceans a bit more and produce some more CO2, as they are only doing what Europe did before.

And that would happen how?

it is called climate collapse (or more PC these days "global change").

The truth is, yes, not everything exists to make life easier, but to make it HAPPIER. If there was nothing new to do, nothing to experience, then most people would probably just feel they might as well give up.

That is true - if that would be the case. But it is not - it only is, because we are used to a certain way of experiencing. Things do not make us happier - not in the long run. And honestly - look for it - is a Michael Jackson happier than a Hadza hunter? Do the members of the Amazonian tribes opposing the Bela Monte Dam look incredibly sad and bored to death and would surely be much better off if they just had TVs and cellphones and internet (and the Belamonte Dam to power them)?
Some things make us happy, but these do not have to be material. And all too often, that happiness is achieved by a later, much bigger sorrow. People just love cars - they are so grerat - you just go in and drive anywhere you want. They are great freedom and fun and make people happy - just 40 years later it turns out that they are poisoning the air, spreading cancer, heating the atmosphere and make life harder in the long term. Was the rush of freedom for one generation worth the burden they and their children have to pay?

The Na'vi don't have what is on Earth, but they have OTHER things, things humans will likely never have. Those are what make it worth it for them. We don't have those. Would the Na'vi want to regress to before they rode ikran?

Well the difference is obvious - Ikran are not made by the NA'Vi at the expense of Pandora. You can fly Ikran forever. You cannot fly oil powered airplanes forever and you cannot build them without creating a little hells gate mine here and there. The NA'Vi lifestyle is sustainable - the present civilization is not.

But to give you an offer - I think if humans somehow would manage to live in a very different way and be all responsible and caring and looking out for sustainability and prolonging the availability of their resources for a looong time, this would be really nice. As I said - I am not at all for "regressing", but I fear a bit, that this change will not come by itself if ever.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Sure - there will be oil in 30 years - no doubt. But it may take even bigger chunks out of the forests of Canada to mine it, may involve even higher risks of oil spills or eventually the beginning environmental destruction of Antarctica.

I never said that was the answer - indeed, I oppose the extraction of oil instead of investment in longer lasting and much lower energy technology - this doesn't change the fact that, like 99% of past estimates of the future, they have proved incorrect though.

I doubt that. Many of the technologies that were believed to "save us all" turned out to be not very good at that. There are quite definite reasons for why these technologies are not applied. To "cover the Sahara in solar panels" (just to pick one of them at random) for example would require unimaginable investments in energy (from fossil fuels), REEs (a limited mineral resource) - it would also require political stability and protection against sand storms and it would create a dependency of industrial states on countires in Africa.

Solar panels in general are a placebo, with the huge amount of energy and resource use required and a short lifetime. Other energy methods (nuclear, wind, wave, hydroelectric) are not.

The technology to travel to Mars are certainly there, but what is the point? Probably you can also send a ship to the asteroids, but what then? Attach a big old rocket drive to an asteroid and haul it back to Earth for mining? That is SciFi.

For now. If we had focused on actually creating it, it could be a regular occurrence by now.

If civilization continues to exist long enough to deplete Earths resources enough, I guess they will start mining in Space by investing humongous amounts of energy into that. But the economic balance of this is quite devastating. What I mean is that the point at which this is viable equals to an Earth so depleted of resources that the thought alone makes me weep.

Again, I agree - but it can be used as a method to PREVENT that.

Not exactly. In one post, you say that we need less people on the planet to make it work, in the next you bash me for suggesting a path that will eventually bring down population.... So what - population reduction is good if it involves the remaining people to live in high tech, but bad if they are living with less technology??

Yet again, people should have the choice of how they intend to live. If someone wants to abandon civilisation, they can, but that should not be forced on them.

still - humans are right now causing the extinction of 1000 times more species daily than the natural rate. Some argue that this is just a natural mass extinction in progress, but with humans having influence on ALL ecosystems on the planet, I think that is completely unlikely (not to mention that there is no other cause that has been found)

I never said I disagree with you, just that it is is naive to claim that extinctions are only human-related.

I am not saying that one should not do these. Heck, I am using them, I am using low temperatures in the washing machine, dry the clothes on the balcony and not in a dryer, heat my room in winter to just 14-16°C, do not use air conditioning and so on - but I do not fall to the illusion that this is anywhere near enough. Your estimate is about right - if all people switch to lower energy light bulbs, it will save about 1% of the energy. I doubt that this would even offset the increase in energy consumption of a single year.

A safe storage for nuclear power for 1.000.000 years? Where?

Massive exaggeration of the length of activity aside, the amount of actual waste produced is small enough to be safely encapsulated in concrete. Modern designs reuse the higher activity waste to produce smaller isotopes which have a much shorter half-life. Yes, it is a problem still, but the truth is, when it comes down to which has less impact, a single site capable of supporting the entire population has far less impact that large mining operations (plus the ironic fact that use of coal and oil actually releases more radioactive isotopes into the environment), plus the physical need for fewer, smaller actual sites. Yes, it's still only a temporary measure until development of actual clean energy (either fusion, or solar satellites (which we could easily have by now if we'd concentrated on a proper space programme)




As the actual topic says (before we got so sidetracked by this ) , that allows people to exist with development with minimal impact.
This thread was not originally about whether or not we SHOULD live like this, just whether or not it is possible to develop technology responsibly.
I support the environment wherever possible, I'm just not ready to give up on everything ELSE I care about for it, because the things we have DO make me happy, there is relatively little I truly care about, one of those things is my family here .

That is true - if that would be the case. But it is not - it only is, because we are used to a certain way of experiencing. Things do not make us happier - not in the long run. And honestly - look for it - is a Michael Jackson happier than a Hadza hunter? Do the members of the Amazonian tribes opposing the Bela Monte Dam look incredibly sad and bored to death and would surely be much better off if they just had TVs and cellphones and internet (and the Belamonte Dam to power them)?

Is it really that foreign to you that BOTH might be happy?
People DO develop technology sustainably. Just because they haven't always (or indeed, have hardly at all, I will admit) in the past doesn't change the situation in the present and future.