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