[ExI] Unsustainable was Re: Solar power makes UK people poorer

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Sat Jun 11 09:29:59 UTC 2011

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:28:08PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:

> The sustainability mantra is the epitome of modern madness of crowds:

I'd rather be mad than dead.

> A glib catch-all phrase based on bizarre assumptions about the world,
> deeply reactionary. To insist that world must be "sustainable" is to

The bizarre assumption that things are not moving nearly as fast
as we want them is called realism.

> say that progress and change (or any actions that would over long
> periods of time result in any changes), are forbidden. We *must*

The rate of change is as quick as it gets.

> ignore cheap, safe and efficient sources of energy (think natural

I don't see anyone ignore natural gas.

> gas), so that our cherished descendants can ... eh, well, continue to
> ignore them? We *must not* use phosphate fertilizer because eventually

You must figure out closed-loop ecosystems down here before you
can attempt to send canned primates elsewhere.

> we could run out of it? Nuclear power is bad because in 50,000 years
> we could run out of fissile elements?

It's bad because http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
> Sustainability is especially misguided as seen from the transhumanist
> point of view - we fully expect that our descendants will be inhuman

If we die now, there will be no descendants.

> in the most basic aspects of their existence, including perhaps
> dependence on oxygen or organic feedstocks. Why should we care about
> theoretical resource limitations in the distant future, predicted

We should care about resource limitations *today*. So that we can
make it into the future.

> based on assumptions of complete technological and social stasis?

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list