Tech vs Degrowth Debate

I'll try my theory:In the west, the last decades have been marked by prosperity. After the big wars, there was abundant energy, relative geopolitical stability, so everything was improving for everybody (we can use more energy to build more machine to produce more stuff that becomes cheaper so we own more and we are happier).Now we see that we have:1. An energy problem (we're reaching the peak of fossil fuels, that shows in the economy, and we don't have a viable solution

Having just read Steven Pinker's book "Enlightenment Now", I'm skeptical of any article that paints this cynical view of how humans are wasting the earth, living their short-sighted lives with no regard for their future descendants.The reality is that science, described here as "keeping the whole system of technical improvisation from falling down", is eradicating extreme poverty and disease on an incredible scale. It is also making poor countries less poor, whic

I don't understand this US mentality that some more tech will save us. It's some some of blind headlong rush to our demise, just to ignore the fundamental problems:- too many humans- too much pollution- too much energy consumption

Technology alone can not solve it. Our excessive consumption IS the reason we have this existential problem. We would need seven Earths worth of resources if everyone lived like North Americans.Edit for the downvoters, it is even worse:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/d9fdb266-1231-4...<a href="https

It cannot be achieved through reduced consumption. Humans won't allow it. It's technology or bust.

No amount of technology will solve a problem that has been caused by technology to start with. There are too many people consuming too much on a planet with finite resources, but no one wants to be the one to change first. So, even if technology can save us, at the end of the day, it's mostly societal problem anyway. At some point people will need to embrace the idea of collapse.

You might not find it helpful right now, your current mode of thinking taken into account. I would however urge you to dig a little deeper into your beliefs and you might find that you've been thinking about this the wrong way.Why do you think we've done the things we've done? Why do you think we build houses, have conventional farming, create sewer systems, create water purification systems, drive cars, have electricity, heat our houses, fly, have heavy industry, run global su

I'd say enshittification is inevitable. It isn't a technology issue, it's human issue. Imagination and desire are what brought us this far and also what holds us back. See also: the tragedy of the commons, the prisoner's dilemma, the trolley problem, etc.

Thanks for that. I submitted this because, although environmental issues come up here relatively often (the collapse of civilisation will, of course, affect tech), I have seen very little with regards to the long-term consequences of our anemic approach to the situation (even the Paris accord is like a band-aid on a shotgun wound). It was nice, for the most depressing value of "nice", to see someone who has shown prescience to just come out and say that there is not much reason to thin

I don't think it's very helpful to just blame humanity in the general sense without explicitly stating what exactly is fucked up about them (this time). Just like in interpersonal relationships, to fix a problem it's best to focus on single issues rather than ruminate over character flaws.I'd say that it's an issue of humans wielding industrial strength tools without proper technology for monitoring and constraining resource consumption.Effectively the planet is po